3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service: Supreme Court Raises Concerns, Signals Rethink on 3-Year Practice Mandate

In the matter concerning the restoration of the three-year practice rule for entry-level judicial service, the Supreme Court of India has now expressed reservations about its impact, especially on women aspirants. The issue arose during the hearing of review petitions challenging last year’s Judgement that reinstated the requirement.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and AG Masih, orally flagged concerns over how the rule is affecting young candidates seeking to enter judicial service directly after graduation.

The Chief Justice noted that nearly 60 percent of judicial officers today are women. He described this as a significant and positive development for the judiciary. However, he observed that the three-year mandatory practice condition has caused anxiety among young women law graduates.

“Most important issue is regarding young girls. Now almost 60% of judicial officer are girls, so that is very important to us. Because of this condition… No doubt practice is important, but we also have to see impact on young talent. This creates a vacuum for 3 years,” CJI said.

The Court was informed that many women aspirants fear they may not be able to complete the required practice period due to social expectations, including marriage and family responsibilities. The Chief Justice openly acknowledged these societal pressures and their potential effect on career choices.

“Girls are really shaken. Girls are the potential of our merit. Because of this condition, there is fear that they will never be able to complete because the family will not allow to complete. They will get married, get settled here and there… More of the social issues,” CJI said.

The Bench also raised a broader concern about maintaining a steady flow of meritorious candidates into the judicial system. According to the Chief Justice, while practical experience is undeniably important, the system must be designed in a way that does not block fresh talent.

“We have to improve the system. No doubt. Practice is a very important component of judicial service. But how to introduce it in such a manner that it does not deprive us from the consideration of meritorious candidates, that it does not create a vacuum of three years. Situation is like this now, if you go for recruitment today, you do not have any fresh pass out. So who are the only candidates available? Those who tried their luck and did not succeed. Or those who never tried and want to take a chance now,” CJI Kant said.

The Court has sought responses from the Registrar Generals of various High Courts on the review petitions. The earlier Judgement, delivered in May last year, had revived the pre-2002 rule requiring three years of practice as an advocate before joining judicial service. It had emphasised that courtroom experience ensures maturity and competence at the trial level.

The present observations indicate that the Court is now carefully reconsidering whether the rule, though well-intentioned, may unintentionally affect diversity and access within the judiciary.