SC ruling is forcing rethink among judicial services aspirants. ‘Is it even worth the struggle?’

SC ruled in May that at least 3 yrs of legal practice would be mandatory to appear for judicial service exams—a move that some hail as reform, others call exclusionary.

Representational image | Oath Ceremony of Judicial Officers of Delhi Judicial Services | Delhi District Courts website

New Delhi: Away from his family for years, 28-year-old Vikas Kumar from Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh had been preparing for the state judicial service exam in Lucknow to fulfill his dream of becoming a young judge. But in May, a Supreme Court ruling changed everything, forcing him to ditch his dream and turn his focus to the UPSC exam instead.

The Supreme Court ruled last month that a minimum of three years of legal practice as an advocate would now be mandatory to appear for judicial service exams—a move that some hailed as reform, but judicial service aspirants called exclusionary because it shut out young law graduates from underprivileged backgrounds.

“This judgment pushed me out,” says LLM graduate Kumar, the first in his family to study law. “I was already struggling to stay afloat financially. Now, they expect me to spend three more years in court, unpaid, before I can even write the exam?”

He tells ThePrint that the reason why he has now decided to test his luck in UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) is because it has “stability and structure”. “In judicial services, there’s no calendar, no vacancy timeline, and no access either, unless you’re privileged,” he says.

The ruling by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran was pronounced in the All India Judges Association and others vs Union of India case. The court observed that neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training could be an “adequate substitute” for first-hand experience of working directly in a court system.

“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,” it said.

The ruling has reignited a debate about access, privilege and the already gruelling process of joining the lower judiciary, triggering concerns among law graduates and judicial service aspirants.

“This isn’t a problem for those whose parents are judges or senior advocates,” says Kumar, who depends on a monthly allowance of Rs 10,000 from his parents, adding that people from “privileged families” will be able to get experience certificates easily. “I am 28, still dependent on my parents for money, living in a small room, with no guarantee of whether I will even become a judge or not. Is it even worth the struggle?” he wonders.

History of the legal practice requirement

The debate over requiring legal practice for entry into judicial services comes with a long history. In 1958, the 14th Law Commission Report, chaired by M.C. Setalvad, recommended that candidates for lower judiciary have three to five years of experience, and exams test practical skills, like drafting, judgment writing and evaluating evidence.

For the higher judiciary, it proposed an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) to recruit young, talented law graduates, aged 21–25, through a national-level exam, followed by structured court training, thus removing the requirement for prior practice. In 1992, the Supreme Court endorsed these ideas in All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India, directing the Union government to establish the AIJS and allowing fresh graduates to compete.

However, in 1993, a review petition reversed this position, reinstating the three-year practice rule, arguing that new graduates lacked the practical insight needed to handle sensitive judicial responsibilities.

Later, in 2002, the Justice Shetty Commission, set up in 1996, found that while all states had complied with the three-year rule, some had gone beyond three years. Therefore, on the suggestion of the Shetty Commission, the Supreme Court accepted that the three-year rule had failed to attract “competent” young judges and scrapped the rule.

The court had also admitted that after a while, “the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after three years of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least three years should be done away with.”

Now, in 2025, the Supreme Court once again revived the three-year practice requirement, with the hopes of finding young judges who can maintain courtroom decorum and give crucial judgments on complex cases. One of the arguments in the apex court was that young candidates often lack maturity and patience, and are sometimes even “arrogant”.

‘Excruciating process’

Earlier this month, Chandrasen Yadav, a young advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, filed a review petition, arguing that the three-year-requirement violates his “fundamental rights”.

Yadav added that the new rules should only be implemented from 2027 onwards to avoid the unjust exclusion of recent graduates who have already been preparing 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.

The review petition, filed through advocate Kunal Yadav, argued, “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.”

Several aspirants have voiced similar concerns.

Kumar says, “How can one even be sure that the candidates coming from privileged families would not make fake experience certificates?”

Advocate Bharat Chugh, a former Delhi Judicial Services judge who left the bench to return to litigation, calls the process of becoming a judge “already excruciating”.

Chugh, who had secured the first rank in the Delhi Judicial Service Exams, tells ThePrint that aspirants face many uncertainties during the process of becoming a judge, including a lack of regular vacancies and varied schedules across states.

He says that the cycle of the exam lasts about six months to a year, while the exam itself is conducted in three stages—prelims, mains and interviews—followed by a training period at the judicial academy. A recent law graduate aspiring to become a judge may not be able to plan their year in the same way that a UPSC aspirant can, he says.

“One of the difficulties an aspirant is likely to face is the sheer uncertainty of the exam notifications and vacancies. Unlike the UPSC, the High Courts and State Public Service Commissions do not operate in a structured manner,” he notes. “The minimum practice condition adds a layer of complexity. It requires you to now also find a chamber as you prepare. It creates a classification in terms of access to contacts in the profession, available opportunities in your immediate city and so on.”

According to him, someone placed in a Tier 1 city may have wider options in terms of finding a senior and practicing across forums and practice areas. “While the exam is law school-agnostic, I am afraid we cannot say that about the litigation and law firm job market, which leans heavily in favour of candidates from certain law schools quite unabashedly and openly,” he says.

However, senior Supreme Court advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani tells ThePrint that the judgment was fair and important to identify better potential judges. “You need practical experience. You need to be an advocate first to know the pulse of the client, and to know how the court functions. You can’t just come out of college and judge,” she says.

Abha Singh, a Bombay High Court advocate, echoes the sentiment.

“It’s a good move. I am with this decision. Lawyers need to have ground-level knowledge before they become judges. At times, my experience has been that these fresh students who come and sit on those chairs are themselves not equipped and do not know so much and then you expect them to make decisions where matters of justice are involved. So, I support this decision,” she says.

‘Pushing women away from judiciary’

Yadav’s plea also argued that the three-year-requirement might discourage women from aspiring to become judges.

According to the 2025 India Justice Report, women account for 38 percent of the judges in the district judiciary. Female candidates fear that if the rule is implemented, a number of these women, who are either going through career breaks, maternity leave, or are “of marriageable age” according to societal expectations, might suffer a setback.

“People say this judgment is gender-neutral, but it’s not. It’s deeply gendered,” a 26-year-old from Uttarakhand, who wishes to remain anonymous, tells ThePrint. The female candidate has been preparing for the judiciary full-time since 2022. “Most women can’t just walk into district courts and start practicing. Our families won’t allow it. We don’t have the networks.”

The candidate, who recently appeared for the mains exam in Uttar Pradesh, is now worried about her future. “They call our training and exam process rigorous, prelims, mains, interviews and academy training. But that isn’t enough? Suddenly, I’m not qualified unless I spend three years navigating a courtroom where I may not even be welcome?” she remarks.

The ruling has also forced 21-year-old Supriya Tiwari, a second-year student at National Law University, Jabalpur, to completely rethink her plans.

“I have wanted to be a judge since Class 6,” she tells ThePrint. “I fought with my family to pursue law. But now I have to explain to them that I’ll be 30 before I start earning. That’s not something most Indian families accept, especially for girls.”

Just like Kumar, Tiwari now considers UPSC a more viable route. “It’s not what I wanted. But it’s stable. I can’t afford to dream anymore,” she says, adding that the judgment “fails” to understand the socio-cultural realities women face.

“There is a whole demographic of girls for whom the judiciary was the only dignified, secure career path in law,” says another female candidate. “We could study, crack an exam, wear that robe. That dream is gone now.”

(Edited by Sugita Katyal)