It is often observed that a rule which appears neutral in theory may unfold very differently in practice. This concern assumes particular significance in the context of the proposed three-year mandatory practice requirement for entry into judicial services in India. What is presented as a reform to enhance judicial competence may, upon closer examination, raise deeper questions about access, equity and the long-term composition of the Indian judiciary.
The proposal to mandate a minimum of three years of practice at the Bar before one can enter judicial services has reignited debate across legal and policy circles. Proponents argue that such a requirement ensures that judges bring with them real courtroom experience, an understanding of procedural law, advocacy strategies and the lived realities and nuances of litigation and law practice. There is undeniable merit in the argument that a judge who has once stood at the Bar is better equipped to appreciate the dynamics of the courtroom.
This position has recently found resonance in the observations of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a brilliant Judge at the Supreme Court of India, who has emphasised that judicial effectiveness is deeply connected with practical exposure to litigation. She has underscored that a judge must understand the “tactics and strategy of a lawyer,” highlighting that adjudication is not merely academic but shaped by experience. Her remarks reinforce a long-standing belief within the legal system that experience at the Bar adds depth and realism to judicial decision-making.
Yet, while this perspective strengthens the case for experience, it simultaneously sharpens a more fundamental question, “Whether such experience must be made a rigid precondition, or whether it can be cultivated through more inclusive and structured alternatives?”
The Case for Experience and Its Structural Limits
There can be little dispute that courtroom experience enhances adjudicatory competence. A judge who has engaged with procedural complexities, interacted with litigants and navigated adversarial proceedings carries a perspective that cannot be replicated solely through academic training. The logic is compelling and at first glance, almost irrefutable.
However, law does not operate in abstraction. It functions within a social framework and reforms must be tested not only against their intent but also against their real-world consequences. The assumption that all aspiring candidates have equal access to meaningful litigation experience does not hold true in practice.
The early years at the Bar are widely recognised as one of the most challenging phases of a legal career. Financial instability, dependence on informal mentorship structures and limited opportunities define this stage. While some navigate it successfully, for many, particularly first-generation lawyers and women, it becomes a point of attrition rather than growth.
Gender Inclusivity and the Hidden Cost of Reform
The proposed requirement raises particularly serious concerns in relation to gender diversity in the judiciary. Although the rule is neutral in its wording, its impact is likely to be uneven.
Litigation in its formative years is demanding and often unforgiving. Long working hours, uncertain income and the absence of structured support systems disproportionately affect not only the women, but men too. Safety concerns, societal expectations and implicit professional biases further compound these challenges for women.
In this context, judicial service examinations have historically provided a relatively equitable pathway. They have enabled women to enter the judiciary based on merit, bypassing structural barriers that persist at the Bar. The results of this approach are visible – women today constitute a significant percentage of newly appointed judicial officers in several states.
This progress is neither incidental nor accidental. It reflects the impact of a system that expanded access rather than restricting it.
Reintroducing a mandatory 3-year practice requirement risk reversing this trajectory. What appears to be a reform aimed at strengthening the judiciary may, in effect, narrow its inclusivity by filtering out candidates, who are unable to navigate the initial barriers of litigation.
Historical Evolution and Judicial Reflection
The debate is not new. It has resurfaced in the backdrop of deliberations before the Supreme Court, revisiting principles earlier examined in All India Judges’ case.
The requirement of prior practice was once recommended, notably by the 14th Law Commission. However, subsequent evaluations, including those of the Justice Shetty Commission, recognised that such a condition discouraged meritorious candidates from entering judicial services. The removal of the requirement was therefore a considered step toward broadening access.
Reintroducing it now must be evaluated in light of both past experience and present realities.
Justice Nagarathna’s observations bring valuable insight into this debate. They reaffirm the importance of experience but do not, in themselves, resolve the question of accessibility. Rather, they highlight the need to balance competence with inclusivity, a balance that lies at the heart of any sustainable judicial reform.
Socio Economic Realities and the Pipeline to the Bench
The issue also has a significant socio-economic dimension. The initial years of legal practice often demand financial resilience. For candidates without institutional or familial support, sustaining three years at the Bar can be a formidable challenge.
For women, the pressures are often more acute. Societal expectations relating to career stability and personal milestones frequently intersect with professional choices. The option of entering judicial services directly after graduation offers not only a career pathway but also a measure of certainty, especially for the women.
Restricting this pathway may lead to the unintended consequence of excluding talented candidates who might otherwise have contributed meaningfully to the judiciary.
The consequences extend far beyond entry-level recruitment. The higher judiciary is only as representative as the pipeline that feeds it; constrict that pipeline today, and tomorrow’s Bench will inevitably reflect that limitation. Judicial appointments to the higher courts are significantly drawn from the subordinate judiciary and any distortion at the entry stage compounds over time.
A mandatory three-year practice requirement effectively raises the age at which candidates enter judicial service, thereby compressing their available years of service before reaching the upper age limits for promotion. This has a direct bearing on career progression. Fewer years in service translate into fewer opportunities for elevation, resulting in a smaller pool of experienced judicial officers eligible for higher judicial positions.
The effect is twofold. First, it creates stagnation and imbalance within the trial courts, where a disproportionate number of officers may remain at lower levels without adequate promotional avenues. Second, it restricts the feeder base for High Courts, thereby affecting both the diversity and depth of candidates available for elevation.
What appears to be a procedural eligibility condition at the threshold thus begins to reshape the institutional architecture itself. Over time, this could lead to a judiciary that is not only less diverse but also structurally constrained in its progression. In a system where continuity, experience and diversity must move in tandem, compressing the entry window risks disturbing that equilibrium, ultimately impacting the quality and representativeness of justice at every level.
Balancing Competence with Access
The central question, therefore, is not whether experience matters? It unquestionably does. The real issue is whether a uniform, rigid requirement is the most effective way to achieve it. There may be alternative models that combine experience with inclusivity:
Structured judicial training programmes
Court-based clerkships
Supervised probationary systems
Such approaches (like for 1-2 years in the district courts) could equip candidates with practical exposure without creating exclusionary barriers.
Conclusion
The proposal to mandate three years of practice for entry into judicial services reflects a legitimate aspiration, to strengthen the quality of adjudication and ensure that judges are grounded in courtroom realities. The value of experience, as emphasised by voices within the judiciary itself, including Justice B.V. Nagarathna, cannot be understated.
When the path to reform becomes too narrow, it risks excluding those it seeks to empower. Reforms must be measured not only by their objectives but by their consequences. If the cost of experience is reduced accessibility, particularly for women and underrepresented groups, the reform risks weakening the very institution it seeks to strengthen.
The challenge, therefore, is not to choose between experience and inclusion, but to design a system that accommodates both.
Because a judiciary derives its true strength not merely from the experience of those who sit on the Bench, but from the diversity of perspectives they bring and when access narrows, justice itself begins to lose its breadth, for a system that closes its doors too tightly may find that it has also shut out the very voices it needs to hear.
