In a significant ruling on 20th May 2025, the Supreme Court, in the case of All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025, overturned its 2002 judgment and made it mandatory for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam to possess a minimum of three years of legal practice. While this may appear to be a reform aimed at ensuring experienced and capable individuals join the judiciary, a closer examination reveals that the move is more regressive than revolutionary.
The Key Takeways of the Judgement
- Three years of legal practice is now compulsory for eligibility.
- Legal experience will be counted from the date of registration with the State Bar Council after clearing the All-India Bar Exam (AIBE).
- Practice certificates must be signed by an advocate with 10 years of experience and endorsed by a judicial officer or principal judicial officer designated for the purpose.
- For those practicing in High Courts or the Supreme Court, a designated court officer will be responsible for verification.
- Recruitment processes already underway will not be affected by this decision.
- Experience as a Law Clerk will now be counted toward the three-year requirement.
- The judgment overrules the 2002 ruling that allowed fresh law graduates to appear for judicial exams, a policy supported only by Sikkim and Chhattisgarh. Most High Courts expressed dissatisfaction, citing that freshers hinder judicial efficiency.
Reality Check
Irregular and Unpredictable Judicial Examinations Judicial service exams across Indian states are far from regular. Many states notify vacancies only once every 4–5 years. On top of that, the selection process starting from preliminary to final appointment can take up to 1.5 years. By mandating an additional three years of practice, the Court has inadvertently created a situation where aspirants may have to wait nearly a decade from graduation before becoming eligible. The result? An entire generation of brilliant legal minds may be discouraged from pursuing the judiciary at all.
Disruption for Thousands of Law Students
In their final year, thousands of law students begin intensive preparation for judicial services, committing years of effort and spending substantial amounts on coaching and study resources. Despite the judgment being prospective, it has created widespread confusion. Students who had structured their career paths based on the earlier eligibility criteria now find themselves navigating an uncertain future. The sudden change in rules has upended their expectations, raising concerns about wasted time, financial investment, and the direction of their professional journey.
A Setback for Women in Law
This ruling delivers a particularly harsh blow to women. In a society where women are still under societal pressure to marry young and shoulder disproportionate family responsibilities, asking them to spend five years studying, three years practicing, and then wait several more years for exam cycles to turn is a formula that will push many women out of the race entirely. Just when women were beginning to make significant inroads in judicial appointments, this decision threatens to undo that progress.
The Door to Corruption Swings Wide Open
The Supreme Court’s requirement that experiences certificates be signed by a senior advocate and endorsed by judicial officers might seem like a step towards accountability. However, this opens the floodgates to nepotism, favouritism, and corruption. For those with the right connections or the means to “influence” the process, obtaining a certificate will be no big deal. Meanwhile, genuine aspirants who strictly adhere to ethics may find themselves sidelined yet another injustice in the name of justice. Who will protect these honest aspirants? Who will ensure that the “verification” of legal practice doesn’t become another bureaucratic hurdle riddled with underhanded dealings?
What We Needed vs What We Got
What India’s judiciary truly needs is systemic reform uniformity in exam schedules, a transparent and time-bound recruitment process, and structural reforms in the lower judiciary. What we got instead is a band-aid solution that disproportionately affects young, bright aspirants and women, and incentivizes manipulation over merit. This ruling, while cloaked in the language of reform, is a textbook example of how well-intentioned policy can go wrong when ground realities are ignored. In seeking to keep “inexperienced” individuals out of the judiciary, the judgment ironically risks keeping merit and integrity out as well. The future of judicial reform lies not in exclusion but in transformation. And that transformation must start with accountability, transparency, and above all, empathy for the very aspirants who dream of upholding the Constitution.
Parth Gautam, Advocate, Delhi High Court, and Pragati Solanki, Assistant Professor, HLM Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad.
