Supreme Court Reconsiders 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service, Flags Impact On Women Candidates
Court observed that while courtroom experience is undeniably important, it must also weigh the broader consequences of imposing a mandatory practice requirement that renders fresh law graduates ineligible for recruitment to the subordinate judiciary
CJI Surya Kant during Supreme Court hearing on review petitions challenging the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for entry into judicial service
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard review petitions challenging its judgment mandating a minimum of three years’ legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into judicial service, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant flagging serious concerns over the rule’s impact on young law graduates, particularly women.
A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant also comprising of Justices AG Masih and Vipul M Pancholi observed that while courtroom experience is undeniably important, the Court must also weigh the broader consequences of imposing a mandatory practice requirement that renders fresh law graduates ineligible for recruitment to the subordinate judiciary.
“The most important issue is regarding young girls,” the CJI remarked during the hearing, noting that nearly 60% of judicial officers today are women. “That is very important to us.”
The Court pointed out that the three-year practice condition creates a vacuum period for young graduates, potentially deterring meritorious candidates from considering judicial service as a career option immediately after completing law school.
“There is no doubt that practice is important,” the CJI said, “but we also have to see the impact on young talent. How do we introduce it in such a manner that it does not deprive us of meritorious candidates? Today, a fresh pass-out is not eligible.”
Expressing concern over the social realities faced by women candidates, the CJI observed that the condition may disproportionately affect aspiring female judicial officers. “Girls are really shaken. Girls are the potential of our merit,” he said, adding that there is apprehension that many may not be able to complete the required years of practice due to familial and societal pressures, including marriage and relocation.
The bench made the observation during the course of hearing review petitions seeking reconsideration of the earlier judgment that reinstated the requirement of three years’ advocacy practice for candidates seeking appointment as civil judges (junior division).
The Court recorded that most High Courts have submitted their views on the issue in response to earlier directions. The remaining High Courts have been directed to file their responses by March 9, 2026. The matter has been directed to be listed shortly thereafter at 2 PM for further consideration.
The review challenges the Court’s May 2025 judgment restoring the requirement of a minimum three years’ practice as an advocate for eligibility to entry-level judicial posts. The ruling revived a pre-2002 position, holding that prior courtroom experience was essential to ensure competence and maturity among trial court judges.
One of the review petitions, filed by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, contends that the judgment overlooked key observations of the Shetty Commission, which had recommended removal of the mandatory practice requirement. The petitioner argues that law degree curricula already include court visits and internships, and that judicial officers undergo structured training before assuming office, making the three-year litigation mandate unnecessary.
It is further contended that the judgment relied heavily on affidavits filed by certain High Courts and State Governments supporting reinstatement of the practice condition, while insufficiently considering contrary views expressed by the States of Nagaland and Tripura, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and the State of Chhattisgarh.
The petition filed through AoR Kunal Yadav underscores that the Supreme Court disregarded key recommendations made by the Shetty Commission in 1999 and previously upheld in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, which advocated for extensive training for young graduates instead of a rigid practice requirement.The petition highlights a lack of empirical data or objective criteria to show that advocates with less than 3 years of practice perform poorly as judges. It points to the success of many young judges who were appointed without extensive practice at the Bar and underscores the principle of reasonable classification under State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), arguing there is no rational basis to treat fresh graduates differently from those with 3 years’ practice.
Case Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran
Order Date: February 10, 2026