Supreme Court Reinstates Minimum Practice Requirement for Judicial Aspirants: Balancing Quality and Opportunity

The Judgment and Its Context

In a landmark ruling that will fundamentally alter the career trajectory of thousands of legal professionals across India, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 20, 2025) held that a minimum practice period as an advocate is necessary for candidates applying to entry-level positions in judicial service. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran, marks a significant reversal of the Court's own 2002 decision that had opened judicial service to fresh law graduates.The Supreme Court's decision in the All India Judges Association case reinstates a requirement that had been standard across most states prior to 2002 that lawyers must demonstrate a minimum period of practice experience, typically three years, before becoming eligible for judicial appointments. The judgment specifies that this practice period can be counted from the date of provisional registration, providing some flexibility to aspiring judges.

This ruling effectively overturns a significant aspect of the Court's own judgment from 2002, which had removed the practice requirement based on recommendations from the Shetty Commission. At that time, the Court observed that "the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service" and that "a bright young law graduate after 3 years of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough." The 2002 decision was intended to widen the talent pool and make judicial service more accessible to talented young legal minds.

After the latest judgment was reserved on January 28, 2025, the Court stayed recruitment processes that were proceeding without the minimum service condition, including one initiated by the Gujarat High Court. This indicates the seriousness with which the Court viewed the matter and its determination to ensure uniformity in judicial appointments across the country.

The Deliberation Process

The judgment follows extensive deliberation and consultation with various stakeholders. Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, serving as Amicus Curiae, raised substantive concerns about allowing fresh law graduates entry to judicial service without any practical experience as advocates. These concerns resonated with the bench, which expressed similar reservations during the hearings. However, the Court also grappled with legitimate questions about the effectiveness of the practice requirement itself. There were apprehensions that some aspirants might merely sign vakalaths alongside other lawyers without gaining meaningful practical experience essentially meeting the letter of the requirement rather than its spirit. This recognition of potential loopholes suggests the Court was mindful of creating substantive standards rather than merely procedural hurdles.The judgment appears to reflect a broad consensus among High Courts across the country. Almost all High Courts advocated for reinstating the practice requirement, arguing that the entry of fresh law graduates into judicial service had proven "counter-productive" to the efficient functioning of courts. This remarkable alignment suggests widespread concern within the higher judiciary about the quality and preparedness of judicial officers who lack advocacy experience.

Only two High Courts Sikkim and Chhattisgarh expressed opposition to restoring the three-year practice requirement. This minority view highlights that the decision was not without controversy, even within judicial circles. The specific reasons for these High Courts' divergent opinions would merit further examination, as they might offer valuable perspectives on regional variations in legal practice and judicial requirements.

Implications for Young Lawyers: New Hardships and Challenges

The reinstatement of the practice requirement will undoubtedly create additional hardships for young legal professionals, particularly those who had planned their careers around the possibility of direct entry into judicial service. For many fresh law graduates, especially those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, judicial service represents not just a career aspiration but a path to financial stability and professional respect.

The initial years of legal practice are notoriously challenging in India. New advocates often struggle with minimal earnings, high competition, and the need to establish professional networks—all while managing the costs of chamber rent, legal resources, and personal sustenance. Many young lawyers work as juniors in established chambers, receiving modest stipends that barely cover living expenses in major cities.

By requiring these struggling professionals to persevere through several years of practice before becoming eligible for judicial service, the Court's decision effectively extends this period of financial uncertainty and professional vulnerability. This could disproportionately impact first-generation lawyers, women in the legal profession, and those from marginalized communities who may lack the social capital and financial safety nets needed to sustain a prolonged period of practice.

Moreover, the reality of legal practice in India varies dramatically between metropolitan centers and smaller towns. While lawyers in cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Bangalore might have opportunities for substantive practice in diverse areas of law, their counterparts in district courts and smaller towns often face more limited options. This geographical disparity raises questions about the equitable application of a uniform practice requirement across different regions and contexts.

Quality of Judiciary vs. Accessibility of Opportunity

At its core, the Court's decision represents an attempt to balance two competing values: the quality and competence of the judiciary versus the accessibility of judicial positions to talented individuals regardless of their ability to sustain years of private practice.

Proponents of the practice requirement argue that judicial officers need firsthand experience of advocacy to fully understand the challenges faced by litigants and lawyers appearing before them. This practical knowledge—understanding the stress of court appearances, the complexities of client management, and the nuances of evidence presentation cannot be gleaned from textbooks or training programs alone. From this perspective, the practice requirement serves as a crucial experiential foundation for judicial decision-making.

Critics, however, might contend that judicial aptitude encompasses more than advocacy experience. Analytical ability, legal knowledge, ethical judgment, and temperament are equally important qualities that aren't necessarily developed through practice alone. Furthermore, some of the most promising legal minds might be deterred from judicial service if they cannot navigate the financial challenges of the required practice period. The legal education system and judiciary may need to develop adaptive responses to this significant policy shift. Law schools might consider enhancing their clinical legal education programs to give students more practical exposure during their education itself. Bar Councils could develop structured mentorship and apprenticeship programs to ensure that the practice period is substantive rather than nominal.

The judiciary might also consider creating differentiated pathways that acknowledge varying forms of legal experience. Alternative criteria could recognize quality legal research, experience in judicial clerkships, or specialized legal training as complementary to traditional advocacy experience.

Conclusion: A Watershed Moment for Legal Careers

The Supreme Court's judgment marks a watershed moment in the evolution of judicial recruitment in India. By reinstating the practice requirement, the Court has prioritized experiential learning and practical legal knowledge in the making of a judge. While this may create new barriers for some aspiring judicial officers, it also reaffirms the importance of comprehensive preparation for one of the most consequential roles in a democratic society.

As this judgment takes effect across different states, its impact on the diversity, quality, and composition of the judiciary will be closely watched. The true measure of its wisdom will lie in whether it succeeds in enhancing judicial quality while not unduly restricting the pool of talented individuals who can aspire to serve on the bench. For young lawyers across India, the path to judgeship has become longer and potentially more arduous, but the ultimate goal remains unchanged: the delivery of justice by those equipped with both knowledge and experience.