From Lecture Halls to Courtrooms: The Supreme Court’s Mandate for Three-Year Litigation Practice and the New Age of Judicial Entry

I. Introduction

On May 20, 2025, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment that effectively changes the dynamics of judicial service recruitment in India. By this judgment in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, the Court has restored the previous stipulation of at least three years of practice as an advocate for candidates who want to become Civil Judges (Junior Division). This one line—"three years of litigation experience"—has turned into a lightning rod for controversy and a revolutionary axis upon which India's judicial hiring system is now compelled to revolve.

At its core, the judgment defies the argument that intellectual brilliance and a high mark in an exam are enough qualifications to become a judge. It reiterates that judging is not merely a function of intellectual acumen, but a vocation steeped in human experience, familiarity with procedure, and knowledge of the socio-legal environment. By doing so, the Court establishes a clear distinction between theoretical dexterity and judicial prowess.

II. Returning to the Bench: The Transformation of the Litigation Practice Requirement

To better understand the importance of this decision, one must follow the history of the litigation experience requirement. In All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had already established that judges cannot be appointed directly from law school, and should have a minimum of three years of practice before being eligible. This was premised on the conviction that first-hand experience in the courtroom is necessary to learn the emotional, procedural, and legal subtleties involved in resolving disputes.

But this was reversed in 2002 after the Shetty Commission had advised that young, meritorious candidates need not be excluded on grounds of age or experience. The aim was to fill up the vacant posts quickly and impart dynamism to a creaking lower judiciary. Following this, several states changed their rules so that fresh graduates could appear for judicial services examinations. Institutions started meeting this new route with specialized curricula and judiciary coaching centers prospered throughout the nation.

But with years gone by, the concerns did rise. Judicial academies pointed out how most new judges found it tough to cope with the pragmatic side of adjudication. Their rulings, technically sound, were not based on reality in court. With mounting pendency, below-par quality of drafting, and growing complaints from lawyers and litigants alike, the issue of minimum practice once again gained prominence. The 2025 ruling then is not a departure from tradition—it is resumption of a more experiential model of judicial training.

III. The Judgment: Reinforcing the Worth of Experience

The bench consisting of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran gave a tartly worded verdict calling out the unreplaceable worth of first-hand legal practice. At Paragraph 64 of the judgment, the Court stated:

"Neither knowledge based on law books nor pre-service training can substitute for first-hand experience of court proceedings."

This is not judicial rhetoric—it is a basic transformation in legal culture. The Court further instructed all the High Courts and State Governments to modify their Judicial Service Rules accordingly. It also spoke on issues related to the date of reckoning: the three-year practice period would be counted from the date of provisional enrollment with the Bar Council, and not from the date of AIBE passing.

In a subtle gesture, the Court also permitted law clerks—who do research and drafting work under judges—to credit their service towards the practice requirement, if certified. The burden of establishing "active practice", though, is on the candidate, through certification by a Principal District Judge or a senior counsel with more than ten years of experience at the Bar.

IV. Closing the Gap between Theory and Praxis

Indian legal education has frequently been criticized for its overemphasis on doctrinal abstractions rather than skills. This pedagogical deficit is exposed and criticized by the recent judgment. Law schools have been lecturing on Evidence Law for years, yet very few students have ever witnessed the Indian Evidence Act being applied in the cross-examination of a hostile witness. Most law graduates know Order 39 of the CPC in abstract, but not how to plead for a temporary injunction in chambers.

This decision challenges students to move beyond textbooks. It demands that a future judge learn how to manage delays, defer to a court's administrative rhythms, and pay attention to the lived realities of litigants. These are essential skills that can be acquired only through practice—by writing affidavits, reading files, interpreting court orders, and working through the usually disordered but ultimately instructive world of actual litigation.
Law schools will need to step up to this challenge through the incorporation of clinical legal education, increasing live case workshops, and collaboration with legal aid cells and trial courts. The ruling presents an opportunity for legal education to be more anchored, responsive, and justice-driven.

V. Implications for Law Schools and the Judiciary Coaching Industry

The spillover effects on legal academia and the private judiciary coaching market are gigantic. Law schools have been coordinating their concluding year curricula over the last several decades to conform to state-level judiciary exams. This was done with the sole aim of obtaining clearing prelims and mains. Even some institutions offered courses with the guarantee of 100% judiciary results as a measure of their reputation.

With the requirement for litigation, this pipeline is destined for a detour. Law schools will now have to prepare students not just to pass exams but to create sustainable litigation careers. This means reinventing infrastructure—providing guided internships, incentivizing senior professors to teach litigation workshops, and introducing students to the realities of trial courts.

Equally, the private coaching sector—famed for producing rank holders—is compelled to evolve. The market would now be directed from cramming to mentoring, from note-based learning to skill-based apprenticeship. Ultimately, this could purify the judiciary preparation system of its poisonous fixation on rote learning, substituting it with real skill development.

VI. Practice Certification and Its Pitfalls

One of the key provisions of the judgment is the need for practice certification. The candidates have to get certified by a Principal Judicial Officer or a senior advocate that they have practiced actively for three years. Although well-meaning, the provision has serious issues.

The Indian Bar does not consistently record courtroom appearances, and several juniors do help seniors without ever showing up on record. How will "active practice" then be assessed? In addition, there is the genuine fear that certification will become a perk reserved for those well-connected, while deserving but less networked applicants might find it difficult to obtain it.

To avoid this from being another gatekeeping process, High Courts and Bar Councils need to institutionalize open systems. E-logbooks, appearance records on a daily basis, and formal junior-senior mentorship reporting may be incorporated as a process. Without reform at the practice certification level, the requirement of litigation may end up being another bureaucratic checkpost instead of a developmental landmark.

VII. Access and Equity: Who Pays the Price?

Arguably the most significant criticism of this ruling is on its socio-economic basis. Legal practice in India, particularly in the early years, is notoriously poor-paid. Junior lawyers earn miserly sums, if anything, and survive only on family assistance to get their practice going. For student lawyers from underprivileged communities, first-generation professionals, or rural wannabes, this provision may set back their financial independence or sabotage judicial ambitions altogether.

Although improving judicial quality is a noble aim, it should not be at the expense of inclusion. The government should factor in stipendiary arrangements for junior solicitors, increasing the number of fellowships in legal aid, and permitting qualified legal aid work to be counted as litigation experience. Unless equity is ingrained in the implementation, the judiciary may end up being filled by the privileged, thus perpetuating class bias.

VIII. Learning from Abroad: International Comparisons

The decision also makes India more aligned with global best practices. In all developed legal systems, judges are chosen following years of practice. The UK requires that appointees to the judicial office have extensive post-qualification experience—ordinarily seven years or more. Judges in the U.S. are frequently appointed or elected only after serving in private litigation, prosecution, or academia. Their screening is not just intellectual acuity but litigation record, public standing, and moral reputation.

India's previous exception—hiring judges straight out of law school—was an audacious experiment, but one that more and more seemed to have its drawbacks. The revival of practice-based qualification is not backward; it is sensible. It reasserts that the law has to be observed, heard, and experienced before it is expounded and handed down from the bench.

IX. A Systemic Shift: Legal Institution Reform

This decision, while judicial in nature, necessitates multi-institutional reform. Judicial academies need to change the orientation training to include previous experience in litigation. Bar Councils need to create accountability systems for monitoring active practitioners. Universities need to construct litigation labs and foster field-based education.

Further, the Ministry of Law and Justice will have to coordinate with State Governments to develop accessible legal apprenticeships. Legal aid clinics have to be institutionalized in district courts. This verdict is not the culmination of reform—it is the initiation of a paradigm shift where judgeship is no longer an immediate promotion from the classroom but a culmination of tested empathy and procedural sensibility.

X. Conclusion: A Challenge Worth Embracing

For judiciary aspirants, this verdict is both a challenge and an opportunity. It delays their immediate entry but deepens their preparation. It complicates the path but enriches the journey. And most importantly, it ensures that when they finally take the bench, they do so with the maturity that only practice can impart.
This ruling is a call to reimagine judgeship as a process, not a shortcut. It affirms that justice is not just a matter of knowledge but of character—formed in the crucible of courts, crafted through client interactions, and shaped by struggle. It is now up to the legal community—students, seniors, institutions, and the state—to rise to this moment.

FAQs: Supreme Court’s 3-Year Litigation Practice Requirement for Judicial Services

1.What did the Supreme Court decide in its 2025 ruling?
The Supreme Court, in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2025), held that all candidates aspiring to enter the Judicial Services as Civil Judges (Junior Division) must have a minimum of three years of active legal practice before they can sit for judicial service exams. This judgment reinstated the earlier rule set in 1993, which had been relaxed in 2002.

2.From when is this rule applicable?
The Court has directed that this requirement shall apply to all future recruitment cycles, but not to any ongoing or already notified recruitment processes. States and High Courts have been instructed to amend their judicial service rules accordingly.

3.Does the three-year period start from my enrollment or AIBE clearance?
The period of three years will be counted from the date of your provisional enrollment as an advocate with the State Bar Council, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). This means your litigation experience starts accruing as soon as you are enrolled—even before your AIBE result is declared.

4.What qualifies as ‘legal practice’ under this judgment?
‘Legal practice’ includes actual courtroom work such as appearing in court, drafting pleadings, filing cases, assisting in arguments, and participating in client consultations. Passive enrollment without active involvement in litigation will not be counted.

5.Can time spent as a law clerk count toward the three years?
Yes, the Supreme Court has permitted time spent as a law clerk to count towards the three-year requirement, provided it is substantive in nature and properly certified. This includes clerks who have worked closely with judges on research, case file management, and order drafting.

6.Who must certify my legal practice?
Your litigation experience must be certified by a Principal Judicial Officer (such as a District Judge) or a Senior Advocate with over ten years of standing at the Bar. The certificate must confirm your active practice and must be submitted to the High Court or State Service Commission during application.

7.What if I assisted a senior advocate but did not argue any cases myself?
You may still be eligible, but your certificate must clearly demonstrate active, substantial engagement in legal work. Generic or vague certificates might be rejected. High Courts are likely to scrutinize such certifications to prevent misuse.

8.Does this judgment apply to Higher Judicial Service (HJS) exams too?
No, HJS (Higher Judicial Services) already mandates around 7 years of legal practice as eligibility, as per Article 233 of the Constitution. This ruling is specifically directed at Junior Civil Judges, i.e., entry-level judicial services that previously allowed fresh graduates.

9.Will internships or moot court experiences during college count?
No. Internships, moot courts, or legal aid work done before bar enrollment will not count. The three-year period starts only after enrollment with a Bar Council. Pre-enrollment activities, no matter how impressive, are deemed part of legal education, not legal practice.

10.I am from an economically weaker background. How can I sustain myself during these three years of practice?
This is a valid concern. The Court did not offer economic solutions, but this issue is now under public debate. Aspirants may consider:

• Working under government legal aid programs (DLSA, SLSA)
• Clerkships or RA positions under judges
• Paid litigation internships or corporate litigation teams Government and Bar Councils are also being urged to create stipendiary fellowships for junior lawyers.

11.Does this affect the credibility of judicial coaching centers?
Yes. Many coaching institutes will now have to shift focus—from helping fresh graduates pass exams to supporting young practitioners with experience-based guidance. The coaching model will likely evolve to include mentorship, case law workshops, and practical advocacy training.

12.What are the pros and cons of this new rule?
Pros:

• Improves the quality and competence of judicial officers.
• Reduces reliance on theoretical preparation alone.
• Promotes better courtroom familiarity and procedural literacy.

Cons:

• Could delay financial independence for aspirants.
• May disproportionately impact first-generation and rural candidates.
• Risks certification-based gatekeeping if not monitored.

13. Can legal work in corporate law firms count toward this experience?
If your role involves litigation-related tasks—such as drafting writs, preparing for arbitration, or representing clients before tribunals—then such experience may count, provided you are enrolled as an advocate and it is properly certified. Purely transactional or advisory work, however, may not qualify.

14. How should law students prepare under the new system?

• Start interning in trial courts early and build relationships with litigating lawyers.
• Get enrolled immediately after graduation to start accumulating experience.
• Seek clerkships or assistant roles with judges post-enrollment.
• Keep a practice diary or portfolio documenting court appearances, filings, or drafting work.

15. Where can I read the full judgment?
You can read the full judgment on the Supreme Court of India’s website or on legal databases like SCC Online, Manupatra, or Indian Kanoon. Look for:

• All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989, decided on May 20, 2025.