New Delhi: When the Supreme Court restored a mandatory three-year advocacy practice rule for entry-level judicial posts last year, critics said the move would particularly hit young women judicial aspirants, who may face career interruptions due to marriage and family life.
Now, the top court has reopened the debate on women in the judiciary by hearing a batch of review petitions challenging its own May 2025 ruling, the outcome of which could change how young women choose careers while balancing ambition and social expectations.
While hearing the review petitions on 26 February, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant signalled the need for balance and the potential impact of the rule on women.
“Girls are really shaken. Because of this condition, there is a fear that they will never be able to complete because the family will not allow (them) to complete. They will get married, get settled here and there… More of the social issues,” he said.
“The most important issue is regarding young girls. Now, almost 60 percent of judicial officers are girls; so that is very important to us. Because of this condition… No doubt practice is important, but we also have to see the impact on young talent. This creates a vacuum for three years.”
At the centre of the debate lies the Supreme Court’s May 2025 ruling making three years of practice mandatory for appointment as a civil judge (junior division). Its reasoning was that this requirement was justified by the need for maturity and competence at the trial level.
The concept of requiring prior legal practice for judicial services originates from the 14th Law Commission Report in 1958 which said that candidates for civil judge positions must have three to five years of experience.
However, the provision was repealed after the Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendations in 2002 on the grounds that top talent was not entering the court but choosing more lucrative positions in the private sector instead.
Last year, the top court in a landmark judgement restored the pre-2002 system following feedback from high courts that the recruitment of fresh law graduates as civil judges showed that they weren’t well-versed with the nitty-gritty of the litigation process or the administration of justice.
Now, the petitions by the Bhumika Trust and others have argued that the three-year practice condition creates a gap period that discourages meritorious candidates from opting for judicial service immediately after graduation.
They say that the May 2025 judgment failed to consider important points raised by the Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendation in 1998 and 1999 to eliminate the mandatory practice requirement which was accepted by the Supreme Court in 2002.
In essence, they believe the three-year litigation requirement is unnecessary as law schools already have court visits and internships in their curriculum. Moreover, they argue that judicial officers have to undergo structured training before joining anyway.
The court has now sought responses from the Registrar Generals of High Courts as it reconsiders the contours of the rule restored last year.
Also Read: ‘No shortcuts’: Tracing delivery boy-turned-civil judge Muhammed Yaseen’s journey to success
The gender faultline
Last month, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that while courtroom practice was important for gaining real-life experiences, it could have implications for women’s judicial aspirations.
He said it teaches young lawyers “courtroom discipline, human behaviour and the weight of judicial responsibility” but added that “there is a flip side too.”
“The initial years at the bar are both demanding and financially uncertain, particularly for those who do not come from established backgrounds or those who come from the mofussil. It may also have implications for women judicial aspirants especially those hailing from rural areas and small towns, who may face career interruptions due to societal constraints or family pressure for marriage,” Bhuyan said.
“Therefore, what impact the three years’ experience requirement may have on women aspirants is something which we need to carefully observe; whether it will impact the significant and welcoming entry of women into judicial service is something which only the future will tell,” he added.
As the Supreme Court reviews the three-year practice rule, some women aspirants describe the challenge of financial strain, marriage pressure and an uncertain wait.
Some support the rule but also feel the three-year gap may not just delay careers, but also quietly thin the pipeline of women entering the judiciary.
Senior advocate Nandita Rao supports the three-year rule, saying it gives time for “a law student to gain the maturity, knowledge of procedure and the difficulties in lawyering. Some idea of that before they adorn the bench. So it makes them more knowledgeable and more empathetic judges”.
On the other hand, she adds that the chief justice of India is right in noting that it adversely affects women. She said the three-year rule would lead to a reduction of women entering the judiciary because most families want women to get married before 25.
“Probably like a girl who’s 22-23 gave the judicial services exam and after the three-year practice, she would be about 26. In the meantime, the family may say get married, etc. And once you’re married, then making a career is, you know, very difficult,” Rao told ThePrint.
Rao suggested a middle ground of introducing a fellowship for women lawyers during those three years.
“They can have some kind of a judicial training fellowship. So maybe if the girl starts earning, then the family is less likely to discourage her from sitting the exam,” she said.
For some women, the choices are personal.
Angira Singhvi Lodha, a partner at Khaitan & Khaitan, was once a judicial aspirant who cleared the exams and took the interview when she was 26 after completing three years of practice, but did not take up judicial practice.
Looking back, she admits the stability of a judicial career might have offered advantages at certain phases of her life.
“At that stage, the judiciary would have given me an august position,” she says.
“When I was in the mid-stage of my career, with young children at home, a stable government job would have helped, not because I was financially crunched, but because it gives predictability. You get your paycheck on time, and promotions follow a structure. Childbirth doesn’t affect a woman in regular service as much as it can in a law firm environment.”
She ultimately chose corporate practice and does not regret it.
“Now I’m 40, based out of Gurgaon, and I have a stable corporate and settlements practice. I’m also a certified mediator. At this stage, I value flexibility. I can work from home if I want to. There’s autonomy. In practice, you own your work. There’s no switch-off time, but there’s also no cap on growth.”
But she sees the appeal of stability for women, particularly those anticipating marriage, relocation, or childcare responsibilities.
“At certain stages, especially with small children, a stable job can be reassuring… You don’t have to worry about business development. Work comes to you. You can take leave like in any structured service,” she says.
Aspirants in practice
Women aspirants in practice say the three-year rule had its advantages and disadvantages.
Advocate Shriya Singh, who is in her late 20s and is preparing for the judiciary exam and has practiced at the same time, says the delay has social consequences, particularly for women.
“It does affect marriage prospects. The older you get, the more people start getting apprehensive. Families often prefer girls between 25 and 27 to get married. Once you cross that, there are questions. And if you’re practising in courts, especially higher courts, some families get intimidated,” said Singh.
But she also acknowledges the advantages of experience.
“Experience builds confidence. It builds understanding. When you appear in court, you learn discipline, strategy, client management. That part is real. But the system has to account for the fact that this waiting period affects people differently, especially women,” she added.
“The experience does help. What we study in theory and how the law is applied in practice are very different. Once I started working on real cases, especially matrimonial matters, I realised how much application matters.”
But the practical reality of combining practice with preparation is gruelling.
“Work culture here can be 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. with barely any time left to study. I sometimes wish they had made it two years instead of three, so you could balance one year of solid practice and still dedicate serious time to preparation.”
Moreover, she says the rule also affects those who have already invested years solely in preparation.
“There are people who have studied for five or six years just for the judiciary exams. Now they have to start practice and then complete three years. Many don’t want to let go because they’ve worked so hard. But it delays everything.”
Singh says she was fortunate to get exposure to practice while preparing for the judiciary exam, but not everybody was so lucky.
Working on and off with a cousin, she was attending court and then coming back home to study. “It wasn’t a full-fledged 24/7 practice, but at least I had some experience. Many others had it worse. They had no work exposure at all.”
“There are people who didn’t have that cushion. Some had to leave preparation altogether and start looking for any kind of work they could find.”
Anushka Ganguly, from Kolkata, explains how a lot of people wish to go for the judiciary because it is more stable compared to advocacy.
“Advocacy demands long hours, often stretching till late at night, but unlike corporates or most institutionalised professions, there is no policy to ensure safe transportation. Even in cases of pregnancy and childbirth, there is a lot more support and security in judicial services than a woman can find in advocacy,” said Ganguly.
She still believes the three-year rule is necessary to maintain the standard of judicial officers, but warns against implementing it in haste, especially since many states are far behind in recruiting judicial officers and a large number of aspirants had been waiting for the exams without notice of such a change in the eligibility criteria.
Some women said they chose to abandon their plans for a judicial career because of the uncertainty and financial pressure.
Anupriya Srivastava, an engineer-turned-advocate, is one of them. She took the judicial exam five times in different states after leaving a job with Infosys.
She spent three to four years during COVID, but “uncertainty and the lengthy cycle” made her change her mind.
Uncertain exam schedules and the financial impact forced her to join the practice of law as an advocate in 2024.
“Three years is a very long time and the financial aspects are critical” she said.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Granting acquittal without written orders catches up with civil judge as MP HC upholds dismissal