Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VII Issue III | ISSN: 2582-8878

HOLDING UP JUDICIAL CAREERS: THE UNSPOKEN

Priyanshu, IMS Unison University, Dehradun

Siddarth Rai, IMS Unison University, Dehradun

ABSTRACT

The Indian Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in May 2025 that
revised the requirements for eligibility in the judicial service test. The Court
mandated that law graduates practice in court for three consecutive years
before taking the tests. The strategy has been quite controversial, despite the
justification that it will improve the caliber of judges by making court
procedures more realistic. The decision is critically examined in this piece
from the viewpoint of a law student. It contends that although the reasoning
behind the decision is sound, unintended repercussions including gender
inequality, social exclusion, and a discrepancy between legal education and
practice could result. In order to maintain diversity without sacrificing
competency, the study suggests alternative reform models such as lengthier
and more formal training following selection, judicial internships as part of
legal education, and reorienting age and eligibility requirements.

Page: 810
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VII Issue III | ISSN: 2582-8878

Introduction

In the past, the Indian court has struggled with backlogs of cases, judicial delays, and concerns
regarding the qualifications and readiness of judges, the majority of whom are junior. The
Supreme Court changed the path to becoming a part of the judiciary in May 2025 by issuing a
ruling in response to these issues. The Court decided that before applying for judicial services,
candidates must have been actively practicing law for at least three years. The decision departs
from the more than 20-year-old system, which allowed recent law school graduates to take the
judicial service examinations immediately after graduation.

The Supreme Court ordered the action because of a growing concern that judges who had no
prior experience in the sector lacked the maturity, procedural knowledge, and confidence
needed to render excellent decisions. The Court attempted to make a link between bookish
knowledge and practical adjudication during this procedure. However, the plan has faced
strong opposition from student communities, legal scholars, and even attorneys. Critics claim
that the decision ignores the systemic flaws in judicial education and that it will probably
disqualify worthy applicants from underprivileged backgrounds. For a law student, the new
rule creates more issues than it fixes.

Background and Legal Context

In order to fully appreciate the Court's ruling, one must take into account the legal context in
which it was rendered. In its ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India in 2002,
the Supreme Court established a rule that permitted law graduates to enter the judiciary through
competitive exams without any prior legal practice experience. In order to have a steady supply
of judicial officers who possess knowledge about modern law, the idea was to draw bright,
young people from the legal profession to the judiciary at the very beginning of their careers.

However, there have been long-standing worries regarding these young judges' genuine
performance. The Bar Council of India and the High Courts were not pleased with their conduct
in court, procedural knowledge, or general maturity. They maintained that judicial decision-
making was harmed by inadequate exposure to practical litigation. These concerns peaked with
the 2025 ruling, which supported the idea that those who wish to judge others must have job
experience in the field of law.

Page: 811
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VII Issue III | ISSN: 2582-8878

Critical Analysis of the Practice Mandate

Although the Supreme Court's goal to increase the judiciary's capacity is commendable, it is
fundamentally flawed to maintain that three years of bar practice equates to judicial readiness.
When it comes to organization and quality, Indian bar practice is wildly disparate, especially
in smaller cities and lower courts. According to a 2023 poll by the Indian Legal Foundation,
almost two-thirds of newly licensed attorneys in tier-2 and tier-3 cities spend the first few years
of their careers doing secretarial duties like processing paperwork or drafting on senior
attorneys' behalf. Most of them are not given the chance to work on substantive legal issues or
appear in court. Because of this, their years of experience won't help them improve their
courtroom skills or cultivate the kind of judgment and reasoning that the Supreme Court wants.

Additionally, there are substantial socioeconomic difficulties due to the blanket requirement.
Law graduates from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are more inclined to view the
legal system as a means of achieving both social and financial success. For many, delaying
their eligibility to apply for judicial posts is not a cost-effective solution. This is made worse
by the fact that first legal experience is usually unpaid or inadequately compensated,
particularly for those without strong professional or legal family links. As a result, the new rule
will discourage intelligent, driven people from underprivileged backgrounds from ever
thinking about a career on the bench.

Gendered Impact of the New Rule

Perhaps the most serious and underappreciated impact of this decision is on women's
participation in the judiciary. Males predominate in the legal profession, especially in litigation.
According to the Judicial Diversity and Gender Representation Report by the Vidhi Centre for
Legal Policy, as of 2024, there are less than 13.4% of Indian High Court justices who are
women. In many states in the north and center, it is much lower in lower courts. Requiring
three years of litigation in a field where women already face structural and cultural
disadvantages threatens further exclusion in such a situation.

Women lawyers are often subjected to harassment, lack of mentorship, and scepticism about
their legal skills, especially in small towns and rural areas, according to many research studies
and anecdotal evidence. According to a 2022 study by the National Law University Delhi, over
60% of female attorneys who practice in district courts said they have encountered hostility or

Page: 812
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VII Issue III | ISSN: 2582-8878

gender bias at work. Due to the requirement of continuous attendance for three years in order
to even be considered for the judiciary, this makes litigation a less accessible venue for women.

Furthermore, social and familial pressures affect the majority of female law graduates,
discouraging prolonged periods of low-paying work, especially in hazardous and unpredictable
settings. This is made more difficult by problems with marriage, moving, and having kids—all
of which disproportionately impact women and disrupt or delay their careers. The Court
disregards these real and significant limitations by mandating constant practice.
The result is a deterrent: fewer women would now attempt to enter the legal profession,
therefore consolidating the gender disparity that already exists. The rule runs the risk of
undoing the slow but important gains made in making the Indian judiciary more representative
of the country's gender diversity, rather than promoting inclusivity.

Changing Legal Education and Emerging Disparities

This decision also occurs at a time of revolutionary transformation of India's legal system. The
former penal and procedure acts—the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and Indian
Evidence Act—have been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These changes represent a total
rethinking of India's criminal justice system, and law school graduates in and after 2023 are
learning these new codes.

This ruling also comes while India's legal system is undergoing a radical overhaul. The
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam have superseded the previous penal and procedural laws, particularly the Indian
Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and Indian Evidence Act. These modifications mark a
complete overhaul of India's criminal justice system, and law school graduates graduating in
2023 and beyond are being taught these new regulations.

Recommendations for Reform

Instead of restricting access to the judiciary, reforms should focus on improving the training
provided to selected applicants. Judges currently undergo an 11-month post-selection training
program. Considering the intricacy of the judicial role, this time frame is excessively short.
Increasing the training period to at least 18 or even 24 months would increase the applicants'

Page: 813
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VII Issue III | ISSN: 2582-8878

exposure to legal ethics, courtroom procedures, procedural law, mediation, and decision
drafting. Even recent graduates would be able to learn the abilities necessary to function as
competent judges thanks to such rigorous and methodical training.

The structure of legal education itself needs to be redesigned in addition to judicial education.
Law school curricula should incorporate work observation in the courts, clinical legal
education courses, mandatory internships with judges, and legal assistance clinic work. It
would close the knowledge-practice gap in the courtroom by enabling students to gain practical
experience and exposure prior to graduation. Universities should work with national and state
judicial academies to create introductory courses that adequately educate students for
employment in the judiciary.

The age limits for judicial service examinations must also be changed if the experience
requirement continues. 35 years is the current maximum in most states. This ceiling can be
debilitating for students who start law school later in life or who experience socioeconomic
disruptions. Raising the upper ceiling to at least 40 years would make the system more liberal
and egalitarian.

The judiciary might receive duplicate pathways from a more diverse paradigm. Candidates
with a legal experience could be assigned to one path, while recent grads could be placed on
the other and undergo more extensive training. This methodology might take into account
various applicant types and guarantee that all judges receive the training they need to do their
jobs well.

Comparative International Experience

Various countries around the world have chosen different models for the appointment of judges.
For example, after passing demanding state exams and finishing official training programs, law
graduates in Germany and Japan are immediately appointed judges. Nonetheless, before being
appointed, prospective judges in the US and the UK must have several years of legal
experience. However, many nations also offer judicial training and lateral entry programs that
are appropriate for seasoned attorneys.

India does not have to follow any model without question. Rather, it must design a system that
adapts to its own diversity, constitutional requirements, and changing legal environment. A

Page: 814
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VII Issue III | ISSN: 2582-8878

competent, representative, and socially conscious judiciary is far more likely to result from a
pluralistic and flexible organization that is attentive to local reality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to require three years of legal practice for aspiring judges is a
sign of its dedication to raising the caliber of the judiciary, but in the end, it is a rigid solution
to a complicated issue. It ignores the diversity of Indian legal practice, exacerbates already-
existing social and economic disparities, and ignores the trend toward modernizing law
schools. Additionally, by creating new obstacles for women in a profession that was
traditionally slanted toward men, the law exacerbates gender inequality. Reform must increase
opportunities while guaranteeing that those chosen are capable and ready, rather than restricting
the pool. It is possible to create a contemporary and efficient judiciary by empowering aspirants
via mentoring, education, and organizational assistance rather than by excluding them.

Page: 815
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VII Issue III | ISSN: 2582-8878

Bibliography

1. Re: Recruitment for Judicial Services, (2025) SC 1142.

2. All India Judges’ Ass’n v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247.

3. Indian Legal Foundation, State of Legal Practice Survey 2023 (2023).

4. Ministry of Law and Justice, Annual Report 2024, Government of India.

5. Ministry of Home Affairs, Press Release on New Criminal Codes, December 2023.

6. Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Judicial Diversity and Gender Representation Report
(2024).

7. National Law University Delhi, Gender Barriers in Legal Practice Survey (2022).

Page: 816