Mandatory 3-Year Legal Practice for Judiciary Aspirants: A Step Towards Strengthening the Bench?

The Supreme Court of India has recently given a landmark judgement regarding a significant change in the process of entering the judiciary. Now the law graduates will need to complete a minimum of three years of legal practice before they can appear for Judicial Services Examinations (PCS-J). Until now, law students could take the Judiciary exam directly after completing their Law degree. This new rule would mean that fresh law graduates would need to spend time in the courts, gaining real-world experience, before even attempting the judiciary exam.

This judgement has sparked much discussion among students, educators, and legal professionals. While some people view it as a necessary reform to improve the quality of judges in India, others see it as an additional hurdle for young aspirants. However, when we look at the broader picture, this move may be a step forward in ensuring that the judiciary is manned by individuals with real legal experience, maturity, and understanding of how the justice system functions on the ground.

| Mandatory 3-Year Legal Practice for Judiciary Aspirants |

The Objective Behind the Move

The main goal behind this rule is to ensure that judges are not just academically qualified but also practically trained. Judges make important decisions that affect people’s lives, and for that, they need more than just theoretical knowledge. They must have first-hand experience of how courts work, how cases are handled, and how legal arguments are made and decided. The idea is that those who have spent at least three years in legal practice will have seen enough of the courtroom to understand the complexities of law in real life. They are likely to develop better judgment, discretion, and a deeper understanding of justice, all of which are essential qualities for someone sitting on the bench.

Why This Could Be a Positive Step

There are several benefits to this proposed rule. Firstly, it would help in creating a judiciary that is better equipped and more grounded. Many young judges today enter the service with very little courtroom experience. While they may have excellent academic records, they often lack exposure to practical legal issues. By making three years of practice mandatory, the system will ensure that future judges understand court procedures, case filing, evidence presentation, and client interactions. This real-life learning is essential in shaping well-rounded judicial officers.

Secondly, the rule may help encourage more law graduates to pursue litigation, a field that is often ignored due to its slow initial returns and lack of financial stability. Many students prefer working in corporate firms or preparing for government exams because the litigation field can be difficult to enter, especially without strong contacts or mentorship. However, if litigation becomes a required part of their journey, more students will take it seriously and gain valuable experience that they might otherwise miss. This could bring fresh talent to the courts and also strengthen the legal profession as a whole.

Another benefit of this rule is that it allows aspirants time to reflect on their career path. Often, law students begin preparing for judiciary exams without fully understanding the job role or the demands of being a judge. After spending a few years in the courtroom, they will be in a better position to decide whether they truly want to join the judiciary or explore other areas such as academia, corporate law, legal aid, or even public policy. This time spent in practice will also help them develop clarity and confidence, which will be useful whether or not they continue pursuing the PCS-J route.

Moreover, real legal practice can also lead to personal growth and development. Being in court means dealing with real people and real problems. It involves managing emotions, understanding human behaviour, and finding solutions that are both legal and fair. These experiences can teach young lawyers not just about law, but also about empathy, patience, and ethics. These are the same values that make a good judge, someone who understands not only the law but also the people it affects.

Challenges and Concerns (and How They Can Be Handled)

Despite its benefits, the rule also comes with certain challenges. One major concern is the delay in career progress. Many students want to become judges at a young age, and this rule means they will have to wait for at least three more years. This can be frustrating, especially for those who have already spent five years in an integrated law program. However, it is important to view this period not as a waste of time but as an investment. These years will not only make them better prepared for the judiciary exam but also help them build a stronger profile with real-world experience.

Another issue is access to resources. Not all law graduates have the same opportunities when it comes to practicing in courts. Students may find it difficult to join established chambers or get mentorship from senior advocates. First-generation lawyers especially may struggle with finding their footing. To make this rule successful and fair, there is a need for supportive measures. Bar associations, law colleges, and state governments can help by creating mentorship programs, providing stipends, offering legal aid internships, and organizing training workshops for young litigators. These steps can make litigation more inclusive and accessible.

A valid concern also arises about how this rule will affect women and students from economically weaker sections. For many such students, securing a stable government job early on is not just a career choice but a family need. Adding three more years of uncertainty in private practice may create financial and social difficulties. However, this gap can be bridged through well-designed government policies. Authorities can offer financial assistance, scholarships, or even create fellowships for young lawyers who are preparing for judiciary exams. Courts can also create more paid junior positions, so students can practice and earn at the same time. With the right kind of support, these challenges can be overcome.

Conclusion: A Step in the Right Direction with the Right Support

This rule which makes three years of legal practice mandatory before attempting PCS-J is a bold and forward-looking move. While it may initially seem like a hurdle for young law graduates, it can become a powerful tool for building a more experienced, knowledgeable, and mature judiciary. It is not just about delaying the exam; it is about ensuring that those who join the judiciary are truly ready for the responsibilities that come with the post.

If implemented thoughtfully, with attention to fairness, access, and support systems, this reform can significantly raise the quality of justice in our courts. For law students, this rule should not be seen as a setback but as a stepping stone. It is an opportunity to learn the law in practice, to grow professionally, and to prepare more meaningfully for the noble duty of delivering justice. The future bench deserves judges who not only know the law but have lived through its practice and this rule may be a step toward achieving just that.