Introduction
The judicial recruitment landscape in India is undergoing a significant transformation, with courts and policymakers actively re-evaluating the eligibility criteria for aspiring civil judges. The Supreme Court’s recent intervention in the Gujarat Judicial Services recruitment has reignited the debate: Should three years of court practice be a prerequisite for judiciary exams? Is this a struggle for aspirants or a strategic path to build legal acumen? This article delves deep into the implications of this shift and argues why this may, in fact, be a smart move.
The Legal Backdrop: All India Judges Association Case
The pivotal development lies in the pending Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989 – All India Judges Association v. Union of India, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has from time to time issued directions on judicial reforms, including minimum qualifications for the recruitment of judges. The core question now revolves around interpreting the need for judicial officers to possess hands-on courtroom experience before assuming office.
Judicial Trends Across States
Gujarat:
The Gujarat High Court’s recruitment notification, which permitted fresh law graduates to apply, was challenged and stayed by the Supreme Court, citing lack of practical experience as a concern for judicial independence and decision-making quality.
Madhya Pradesh:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court mandates either three years of continuous practice or a minimum of 70% aggregate in LL.B., recognizing both practical and academic competence under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules.
Himachal Pradesh:
Recruitment for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts has been stalled until the Supreme Court clarifies the legal position, showing how judicial consistency is being awaited nationwide.
Karnataka and Others:
State judicial services across India are now revisiting their recruitment rules to possibly incorporate a mandatory practice clause, aligning with the principle of quality judicial appointments.
Struggle or Smart Move?
While three years of practice might initially seem like a barrier to early entry, in reality, it serves as a bridge between academic theory and judicial pragmatism.
Advantages of Mandatory Practice:
1. Strengthening Procedural Knowledge
Hands-on practice enhances grasp over Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Indian Evidence Act, and Indian Penal Code (IPC)—the very backbone of judiciary exams.
2. Improved Judgment Writing & Legal Drafting
Real case exposure hones skills in judgment writing, pleadings, and legal reasoning, making aspirants courtroom-ready.
3. Ethical and Professional Grooming
Observing bar-bench interactions, ethical dilemmas, and professional conduct equips future judges with insights that no classroom can offer.
4. Performance in Interviews
Practical exposure adds substantial weight during viva voce/interview rounds, where candidates are tested on application of law and situational judgment.
Conclusion:
Rather than a hurdle, three years of court practice should be viewed as a judicious investment in one’s legal career. It ensures that future judges don’t just know the law—they understand its application, context, and consequences. As India moves toward strengthening its judicial system, experiential learning will be the cornerstone of competent adjudication.
