Supreme Court's 3-year Bar experience rule for judge exam triggers concern among aspirants

The Hindu

4 hours ago

Last month's Supreme Court's landmark ruling reinstating the requirement that candidates must have at least three years of litigation experience before they can sit for the judicial service examination for entry-level judgeships has prompted concerns over the challenges it may pose for recent graduates.
The court's decision was rooted in the belief that judicial officers must have practical exposure to the courtroom before donning the robe. 'The judges from the very day on which they assume office have to deal with the questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of litigants,' the apex court said in the May 20 judgment.
It observed that, 'neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court system and the administration of justice. This is possible only when a candidate is exposed to the atmosphere in the court by assisting the seniors and observing how the lawyers and the judges function in the court'.
Fundamental rights
The ruling has triggered concerns among law graduates and aspirants. A review petition filed by Chandrasen Yadav, a young advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, argues that the mandatory three-year requirement infringes on his fundamental rights.
Mr. Yadav submitted that the mandatory three-year practice rule should be implemented only from 2027 onwards to avoid unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023–2025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria.
'Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution,' he said.
Another petitioner, Chandra Sharma, who comes from an Army background, highlighted the requirement to obtain a practice certificate from a lawyer with 10 years of standing. 'Lawyers I have worked with had 5–7 years of experience. The new norms will make it more difficult for me to get a certificate,' she said.
Pawan, a first-generation lawyer, echoed similar frustrations. 'I started my career under a senior advocate, but I couldn't sustain myself financially. I joined a law firm. Now that experience won't count. Why should I be penalised for taking a corporate job to survive?'
Robust training
The review petition argues that the apex court has overlooked key aspects of the very report it cited — the Shetty Commission. While the 1999 report had recommended a three-year practice period, it also noted that due to practical court training being integrated into modern legal education, such a requirement may not be necessary if robust training is provided post-selection.
It highlighted Clause 8.35 of the Shetty Commission's Recommendations, which explicitly stated that if young and meritorious law graduates are imparted intensive training, it may not be necessary to prescribe three years of practice at the Bar as a precondition for entry into judicial service.
Additionally, the review petition contended that the court failed to cite any 'data, statistics, or studies which establish that fresh law graduates perform poorly as judges, or that three years of practice necessarily correlates with better judicial competence and that past recruitments from among freshers have resulted in any systemic inefficiencies or failures'.
The review petition, filed through advocate Kunal Yadav, argued that, 'a candidate selected for judicial service is not 'raw,' but one who has undergone a rigorous and multi-tiered selection process comprising a comprehensive preliminary examination, mains examination testing knowledge of substantive and procedural laws, and a final viva-voce conducted by senior judges or experienced legal professionals'.
The plea additionally argued that the three-year requirement may discourage women, first-generation lawyers, and economically weaker candidates who may not have the means to sustain an uncertain legal practice before securing a stable judicial post.