Imagine finishing law school…
You have the degree.
You’ve studied the Constitution, CPC, CrPC, Evidence and every possible legal provision.
And then you hear:
“Wait. You need courtroom experience before you can even enter the judicial service.”
That was the three-year practice requirement.
But now…
The Supreme Court has changed the equation.
FROM 3 YEARS TO 1 YEAR
The Supreme Court has recently reduced the mandatory practice requirement for candidates seeking entry-level judicial service from three years to one year.
But there’s a catch.
Or perhaps…
A better word would be:
*Training.*
The Court has not simply removed practical experience from the equation.
Instead, it has redesigned how that experience is acquired.
Selected candidates will undergo structured training and clerkship after selection, giving them practical exposure before they fully take on judicial responsibilities.
So the question isn’t really:
“Do future judges need experience?”
The Court’s answer appears to be:
Yes. But does all of that experience have to come before selection?
WHY WAS THE 3-YEAR RULE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The idea behind the practice requirement was fairly straightforward.
A judge doesn’t simply read statutes.
A judge deals with real people.
Real disputes.
Real evidence.
Real lawyers.
Real courtroom pressure.
That is why practical experience at the Bar was considered important for judicial officers.
The Supreme Court’s earlier jurisprudence had emphasised the value of courtroom experience in strengthening the competence and independence of the subordinate judiciary. 4
But there’s another side to the story.
For a fresh law graduate, three years of mandatory practice could mean delaying entry into judicial service.
And not every young lawyer has the same access to meaningful litigation experience.
So…
Was the three-year requirement creating practical wisdom?
Or was it simply creating another barrier to entry?
BUT IS ONE YEAR REALLY ENOUGH?
And here comes the real debate.
One year of practice can provide exposure.
But is it enough to understand the complexities of litigation?
Can classroom learning plus structured training truly replace years of dealing with clients, evidence, arguments and courtroom strategy?
Supporters of the change can argue that structured judicial training provides a more uniform form of practical preparation.
Critics may worry that new judges could still lack the instinct that develops only after years inside actual courtrooms.
And honestly…
That’s what makes this development interesting.
Because this isn’t simply a recruitment rule.
It is a debate about:
What makes a good judge?
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR LAW GRADUATES?
For young law graduates aspiring to enter the judiciary, the change can significantly alter the pathway.
The mandatory practice barrier has been reduced.
But practical exposure hasn’t disappeared.
The Court’s framework still places emphasis on training, clerkship and preparation before judicial officers fully assume their role.
So if you’re a law student thinking:
“Great! I don’t need courtroom experience anymore.”
Not exactly.
The better takeaway is:
The route to gaining that experience has changed.
FINAL THOUGHTS
A judge needs knowledge.
But a judge also needs judgment.
And judgment doesn’t come from books alone.
It comes from seeing how law works when two real people are standing on opposite sides of a courtroom.
The Supreme Court’s latest move therefore raises a fascinating question:
Should judicial competence be measured by how many years you’ve spent at the Bar?
Or by how effectively you’ve been trained to perform the responsibilities of a judge?
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between.
Because the ultimate goal isn’t simply to produce judges faster.
It is to produce **better judges.**
Still have questions?
Head over to the FAQs below to help clear your doubts.
Frequently Asked Questions.
The Supreme Court has recently reduced the mandatory practice requirement for entry-level judicial service from three years to one year. The revised framework also provides for structured training and clerkship after selection.
The requirement was intended to ensure that entry-level judicial officers have practical courtroom experience before taking up judicial responsibilities. The Supreme Court has historically recognised the importance of practical exposure for the competence and independence of the subordinate judiciary.
The current framework requires the prescribed practice experience for eligibility, which has been reduced to one year. Candidates must also satisfy the applicable judicial service examination and recruitment requirements.
Yes. Under the revised approach, selected candidates are to undergo structured training and clerkship before fully assuming judicial responsibilities.
The change seeks to balance the need for practical legal experience with the need to make entry into judicial service more accessible and structured. Instead of relying solely on pre-selection practice, the revised framework places greater emphasis on post-selection training and clerkship.