Judicial journey, how was the 3-year practice made mandatory

Over the past few years, a major shift has taken place in how we select judges for the lower judiciary in India. One of the most debated and transformative changes is the introduction of the three-year minimum practice requirement to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). For decades, fresh law graduates could sit for these competitive exams straight out of law school. But today, several High Courts—and even the Supreme Court—believe that’s no longer enough.

So what changed?

The real turning point came with the judiciary's growing concern about the lack of practical experience among newly appointed judges. Lower court judges are often the first face of justice for the common person. Their courtroom is where the first complaint is filed, where the evidence is first examined, and where most litigants

form their first opinion about the legal system. It's a heavy responsibility, and one that arguably requires more than academic knowledge.

In the landmark case of All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court highlighted the need for better standards in the appointment and training of judicial officers. The Court strongly felt that a judge must have exposure to real courtrooms before being allowed to preside over one. Reading about evidence law is one thing—watching how it plays out in a live trial is something else entirely.

This idea was further reinforced in Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik (2013), where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional power of High Courts to set eligibility rules. The judgment made it clear that requiring prior practice doesn’t violate any fundamental rights. Instead, it ensures that the judiciary is staffed with professionals who’ve seen the law in action—not just in theory.

States like Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan were among the first to bring in the three-year rule. Later, the Allahabad High Court and Delhi High Court followed suit. Their reasoning was simple: a candidate who has spent time as a practicing advocate understands the courtroom atmosphere, procedural hurdles, client interaction, and ethical challenges better than someone who has never set foot in a trial.

However, this rule hasn’t come without criticism. Many argue that it creates a barrier for first generation lawyers or students from rural backgrounds, who may not have the financial support to sustain three years of uncertain legal practice. It’s a valid concern. But at the same time, we must remember that judges are not just exam-takers—they are decision-makers. Giving a person the power to decide someone’s liberty, rights, or property requires more than a good score. It requires judgment, and judgment comes with experience.

The constitutional basis for this rule also finds some support in Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution. While Article 233(2) already requires seven years of advocacy for direct recruitment as a District Judge, extending a similar experience-based eligibility to Civil Judges has been seen as a step toward raising the overall standard of the judiciary.

Even the Law Commission of India, in multiple reports, has advocated for better-prepared judges with prior exposure to court work. Their reports emphasized that a well-trained trial judge can reduce delays, improve the quality of trials, and boost public trust in the judiciary.

In the end, the three-year practice requirement isn’t about excluding anyone—it’s about making the system stronger and more professional. Yes, it adds a few extra years before one can become a judge, but those years are an investment. They shape the kind of judge who isn’t just well-read but also well-prepared.

And in a country where justice is already delayed far too often, well-prepared judges may just be the change we need.