The Supreme Court of India, vide its Order dated 15.01.2026 in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors. directed all law universities and National Law Schools to submit their suggestions on the mandatory three-year practice requirement prescribed for eligibility in judicial services examinations, as reinstated by the judgment dated 20.05.2025 in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184. In response to this direction, the Academic Committee of the Student Bar Council, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad undertook a structured consultation with its student body and alumni, receiving detailed responses from law students across diverse socio-economic and regional backgrounds. The Report, which has also been submitted to the Court, presents a synthesis of these perspectives alongside previous discussions, commission reports, and comparative analysis.
Origin and Context
The three-year practice requirement originates from the 14th Law Commission Report (1958), a period when the LL.B. was a two-year degree with no mandatory practical training component. Its constitutional footing was established in All India Judges Association v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 288], wherein the Supreme Court directed that applicants possess at least three years’ standing as advocates. However, the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Justice Shetty Commission, 1999) subsequently conducted an exhaustive review and made categorical observations against the requirement, noting that the five-year integrated law degree had rendered the original rationale obsolete and that graduates of institutions such as the National Law Universities (NLUs) were better equipped than junior advocates of three years’ standing. Accepting these recommendations, the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC 247] abolished the practice requirement. The judgment delivered in 2025 has reversed that considered position, and it is submitted by us that it has done so without engaging with the foundational concerns that informed the earlier position.
Principal Concerns
There were several structural and constitutional concerns raised with the reinstated rule.
The most fundamental is the operation of the rule as an economic barrier. Junior advocates in India typically earn less than Rs. 10,000-15,000 per month in their formative years, with the Bar Council of India’s 2024 guidelines recommending minimum stipends of Rs. 20,000 (urban) and Rs. 15,000 (rural) remaining largely unenforced. Three years of such financially precarious, often unremunerated practice is a viable proposition only for candidates with independent financial support and backing, effectively transforming a merit-based recruitment process into one that filters by economic circumstance. First-generation lawyers, who lack access to established chambers, professional networks and senior mentorship, face compounded disadvantage in this regard.
The Report further documents a distinctly gendered impact of the ruling. Women constitute less than 20% of the Bar and face disproportionate societal pressures around marriage and caregiving responsibilities during their mid-twenties. Women currently constitute approximately 38.3% of selected candidates in the lower judiciary, a figure that reflects the gains made through direct institutional entry routes. The mandatory practice requirement risks reversing these gains. Candidates from rural and semi-urban areas, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and persons with disabilities face overlapping versions of the same exclusion, raising serious concerns about access to opportunity.
The Report also questions the empirical premise of the rule. No data is placed on record by the Court to demonstrate that judges with prior Bar practice of three years perform better in the profession than those without such experience. In practice, the initial years of litigation frequently involve clerical functions with limited exposure to substantive legal reasoning or courtroom advocacy. The quality of practice experience varies significantly depending on access to reputed chambers, a variable that is itself a function of privilege.
Additionally, the certification process is susceptible to circumvention, with candidates having professional connections capable of obtaining practice certificates without genuine courtroom engagement.
The cumulative timeline created by the rule merits keen attention. The five-year law degree, followed by three years of mandatory practice, a one-to-two-year examination cycle, and one year of post-selection training places judicial appointment at approximately age 30 to 31. A candidate with seven years’ standing at the Bar at that stage is more likely to aspire directly to the District Judge cadre, thereby defeating the very objective of attracting young talent into the judicial pipeline at the foundational level.
Recommendations
The Report’s primary recommendation is the removal of the mandatory three-year practice requirement for eligibility in judicial services examinations for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre. In its place, the following alternatives were suggested:
First, post-selection judicial training should be extended to a minimum of two years, with a rigorous curriculum encompassing judgment writing, procedural law, judicial ethics, and field placements. The Law Commission’s 117th Report noted that “two years of intensive training would outweigh the advantage, if any, of three years’ practice at the Bar”.
Second, paid judicial clerkships should be introduced at the District Court level as an alternative pathway to practical exposure, ensuring uniform, accountable, and financially supported experiential learning.
Third, the examination and selection process should be reformed to include components testing practical competence. This could include organising mandatory judgment-writing exercises, case-management modules, and structured oral assessments.
Fourth, any practice requirement that the Court deems necessary to retain should be applied prospectively, with appropriate grandfathering provisions to protect the legitimate expectations of candidates who have already graduated and structured their career choices accordingly.
Fifth, budgetary allocation for judicial training infrastructure requires substantial enhancement. The share of the judicial budget dedicated to judicial training has remained between 0.4% and 0.6% from 2021-22 to 2024-25, and the National Judicial Academy currently operates on an annual grant of approximately Rs. 20 crores which are inadequate for any meaningful reform of training standards.
Conclusion
The mandatory three-year practice requirement, in its present form, operates as a structural barrier that disproportionately excludes candidates from economically disadvantaged, socially marginalised, and underrepresented backgrounds. These are the very identities whose presence in the judiciary is most essential to the constitutional promise of equality. The Report urges the Court to reconsider the requirement in light of its disproportionate consequences, and to consider investing instead in the structural alternatives that would produce a judiciary that is not merely competent, but genuinely inclusive.
The full Report is available [here].
