The Supreme Court of India on Thursday heard review petitions challenging its earlier decision mandating three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into judicial service. During the hearing, Justice K. Vinod Chandran remarked that much of the opposition to the rule appears to be influenced by the growing ecosystem of coaching centres that prepare candidates for judicial examinations.
The observation was made by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, also comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, while hearing review petitions against the Court’s May 2025 judgment restoring the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial posts such as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Court Flags Coaching-Driven Preparation Culture
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that the three-year practice requirement could delay the entry of young legal professionals into the judiciary. According to her, candidates often spend significant time preparing for competitive examinations, and the additional requirement of courtroom practice could raise the average age of entry into judicial service.
Responding to these submissions, Justice Chandran observed that the present recruitment ecosystem has increasingly shifted towards coaching-based preparation rather than genuine legal exposure through litigation. Drawing from his experience in judicial appointments and interviews, the judge noted that the reliance on coaching centres has become a structural concern in the process of selecting judicial officers.
The remark reflected the Court’s concern that examination-oriented preparation alone may not adequately equip candidates with the practical understanding required for adjudication.
The controversy arises from the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling restoring the requirement of at least three years of practice at the Bar for candidates aspiring to join the subordinate judiciary. The decision marked a departure from the earlier system introduced in 2002, which had allowed fresh law graduates to appear directly in judicial service examinations without prior professional experience.
The Court had justified the restoration of the rule on the ground that judicial officers must possess practical courtroom exposure and professional maturity, which cannot be substituted solely by academic knowledge or training programmes.
Review Petitions and Policy Debate
Following the judgment, several petitions were filed seeking reconsideration of the rule. Petitioners have argued that the practice requirement may discourage talented law graduates from pursuing judicial careers and may disproportionately affect candidates who rely on competitive examinations as their primary entry route into the profession.
During earlier hearings, the Court also acknowledged concerns regarding the rule’s impact on certain categories of candidates, including women and persons with disabilities, and invited suggestions from High Courts and law universities on possible adjustments to the policy framework.
Possible Reforms Under Consideration
While hearing the review petitions, the Court has been examining whether the rule should remain mandatory or whether alternative mechanisms such as structured judicial training programmes could serve as substitutes for the experience requirement.
However, the bench indicated that the broader objective remains ensuring that judicial recruits possess adequate practical exposure to litigation before assuming adjudicatory responsibilities.
The outcome of the review proceedings is likely to have a significant impact on the future structure of judicial recruitment in India. The three-year practice requirement directly affects thousands of law graduates who aspire to join the subordinate judiciary through state judicial service examinations.
At the same time, the Court’s remarks during the hearing highlight a deeper institutional concern: the growing influence of examination-oriented coaching systems in shaping judicial recruitment patterns, potentially at the cost of practical courtroom experience.
The matter is expected to be taken up again by the Supreme Court as it continues to deliberate on the future of the three-year practice rule and its implications for the quality and structure of the Indian judiciary.
