Law Colleges Suggest Alternatives to 3-Year Practice Mandate for PwD Candidates

Several law universities and institutions have proposed alternative approaches to the mandatory three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service posts, particularly for persons with disabilities (PwD). These suggestions were submitted to the Supreme Court in response to its call for views on whether the rule should be relaxed for specially-abled candidates.

The proposals have been compiled and placed before the Court by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice A.G. Masih is scheduled to hear review petitions challenging the 2025 judgment that reinstated the requirement of three years of practice at the Bar for judicial service recruitment.

Broadening the Meaning of “Practice at the Bar”

Several institutions suggested that the definition of “practice at the Bar” should be expanded to include other forms of meaningful legal experience.

Balaji Law College proposed recognising experiences such as judicial clerkships, structured litigation internships, and research positions as equivalent to active legal practice. According to the institution, these forms of engagement provide substantial exposure to litigation and court functioning.

Similarly, Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU) suggested that specially-abled candidates should be allowed to substitute the three-year litigation requirement with equivalent professional experience such as legal research, teaching in law universities, or assisted practice under structured mentorship programmes.

Law College, Jalna also recommended redefining “active practice” to include clerkships and recognised research work. It further proposed granting reasonable accommodation to PwD candidates by relaxing the practice timeline or recognising digital legal work as valid professional experience.

Proposal for Judicial Residency and Curriculum Reforms

Some institutions suggested replacing the rigid entry requirement with structured training after recruitment.

Law College, Jalna proposed introducing a one-year “Judicial Residency” programme after selection. Under this model, newly appointed judicial officers would undergo intensive practical training to develop courtroom experience and professional maturity.

The institution also recommended that law colleges integrate trial court procedures into their academic curriculum. According to the proposal, the final year of legal education could be designed to count toward professional experience, allowing graduates to enter judicial service without losing valuable early career years.

Emphasis on Post-Selection Training

Several universities argued that strengthening post-selection training mechanisms could be more effective than imposing strict eligibility barriers.

Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) opposed the three-year practice requirement and suggested increasing the training period for Civil Judges to two years. The proposed programme would include attachments with district judges and senior advocates, followed by a fresh personality assessment to evaluate professional competence.

The university also recommended that if a candidate fails to meet the required standards after two years, the probation period could be extended by another year to ensure adequate skill development.

Performance-Based Judicial Training

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL) suggested a model of supervised probation for newly recruited judicial officers. Under this system, candidates would work under the supervision of a sitting judge and would not be authorised to pass independent orders until their competence is assessed through performance-based evaluation.

The university emphasised that strengthening judicial academies and introducing advanced training modules on practical adjudication, evidence evaluation, and judgment writing could ensure higher standards in the judiciary without excluding potential candidates at the entry stage.

Institutional Support for Candidates with Disabilities

Some submissions focused on creating institutional mechanisms to help persons with disabilities acquire practical legal experience.

The Centre for Rights of Persons with Disabilities at V.M. Salgaocar College of Law recommended creating law clerk positions within the subordinate judiciary to provide structured exposure to court procedures. It also suggested collaboration with legal services authorities to offer stipend-based opportunities.

The centre further emphasised the importance of digitisation of court processes and accessibility measures in court infrastructure to facilitate participation by advocates with disabilities.

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari also proposed that High Courts should establish facilitative mechanisms such as structured mentorship programmes, fair empanelment practices, and technological support within court registries to help advocates with disabilities complete the required professional experience.

Competency-Based Assessment Model

Some institutions suggested moving away from rigid duration-based requirements toward a competency-based evaluation system.

Balaji Law College proposed assessing candidates on parameters such as judgment writing, procedural knowledge, and case management skills rather than strictly insisting on a fixed period of practice at the Bar.

According to the institution, such an approach would better reflect a candidate’s readiness for judicial responsibilities.

Suggestions for Financial and Structural Support

While supporting the continuation of the rule, some colleges recommended introducing safeguards to address practical challenges faced by young lawyers.

Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College suggested formalising the practice requirement through a paid apprenticeship system or structured mentorship certification, ensuring financial stability during the early years of litigation.

Similarly, KLE College of Law highlighted that the initial years of legal practice often involve financial uncertainty, which can particularly affect women and economically weaker aspirants seeking judicial careers.

Outlier Suggestion to Increase Practice Requirement

In contrast to most submissions advocating relaxation or alternatives, K Govindrao Adik Law College suggested increasing the minimum practice requirement from three years to five years, arguing that longer litigation experience would strengthen judicial competence.

Case Details

Case: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases
Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 001110 / 2025 and connected matters

The Supreme Court will examine these suggestions while considering review petitions against the judgment that restored the three-year mandatory practice condition for entry into the judicial services. The outcome of the case is expected to shape future policies on judicial recruitment, particularly concerning accessibility and inclusion for persons with disabilities.