Does 3 Year Litigation rule block Women from Judiciary? SC reconsiders Mandatory Practice for Civil Judges

The Supreme Court has reopened debate on its decision mandating a minimum three years’ legal practice for entry into the subordinate judiciary, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressing concern over its effect on fresh law graduates, particularly women. Hearing review petitions against the May 2025 ruling, a Bench comprising the CJI, Justice A.G. Masih and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi signalled that while courtroom exposure is valuable, the rule’s broader consequences on judicial recruitment cannot be ignored.

The earlier judgment had restored a pre-2002 requirement making three years’ advocacy practice mandatory for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), citing the need for maturity and competence at the trial level. The review petitioners argue that this condition creates a gap period that discourages meritorious candidates from opting for judicial service immediately after graduation.

They rely on recommendations of the Shetty Commission and prior rulings such as All India Judges Association v. Union of India, contending that structured judicial training can substitute for mandatory litigation experience. It is also argued that the rule lacks empirical backing and disproportionately disadvantages women who may face social constraints during the practice period.

During the hearing, the CJI observed that the Court must balance professional preparedness with inclusivity in recruitment. “The most important issue is regarding young girls,” he remarked, noting that a significant proportion of serving judicial officers are women. Acknowledging that “practice is important,” the Bench questioned how the system can be structured “in such a manner that it does not deprive us of meritorious candidates.”

The Court recorded that most High Courts have submitted their views and directed the remaining to respond by March 9, 2026, listing the matter for further consideration thereafter.