“Come back after three years of practice. You\u2019re too young to judge.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And just like that, a system designed to find justice tells a believer \u2013 not yet.<\/p>\n
Not because he wasn\u2019t worthy. But because he hadn\u2019t struggled long enough. Not yet bent under the system\u2019s weight. Not yet resigned.<\/p>\n
Apparently, to judge better \u2013 you must suffer first.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/span>Too Young To Judge? Rethinking Practice Prerequisites in Indian Judicial Services<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/span>Abstract<\/span><\/h2>\nShould the doors of the judiciary remain closed to young aspirants until they \u201cearn credibility\u201d by standing at the Bar for three years? The recent resurgence of this idea \u2014 a mandatory practice requirement before sitting for judicial service exams \u2014 appears sound on paper. It’s rooted in the belief that court exposure breeds judicial maturity. But what happens when we test this theory against systemic inequities, the lived realities of young law graduates, constitutional ideals, and actual performance data?<\/p>\n
This article explores the implications of mandating experience at the Bar as a pre-condition for joining the lower judiciary. It traces the constitutional position, examines case law, and interrogates whether lived experience at the Bar always translates into greater judicial competence. It argues that such a requirement could become a gatekeeping mechanism \u2014 one that systematically excludes first-generation lawyers, women, and students from under-resourced backgrounds. Finally, it proposes a vision for an inclusive judiciary that values early training, institutional mentorship, and regulated entry over arbitrary thresholds of practice.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Introduction<\/span><\/h2>\nA law student walks out of their final exam. In their heart, there’s not a dream of litigation or corporate law \u2014 but one of the bench. They\u2019ve spent years preparing for the judicial services exam, mapping case law better than court clerks, debating ethics late into the night, and reading judgments with religious dedication. But now, a voice tells them: \u201cYou\u2019re too young to judge.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nIn this era of reform and institutional accountability, India stands at a crucial juncture: a growing call to impose a minimum three-year legal practice requirement<\/strong> before one can attempt the judicial service exam. While motivated by concerns of competence, the proposal has sparked a deeper concern: Is experience the only\u2014and fairest\u2014currency to measure eligibility?<\/em> And if so, whose experience counts?<\/p>\n<\/span>Constitutional Context and Governance of Judicial Appointments<\/span><\/h2>\nJudicial appointments for the higher judiciary<\/strong> (High Courts and Supreme Court) follow the process outlined in Articles 124 and 217<\/strong>, and for district judges<\/strong>, Article 233(2)<\/strong> of the Constitution of India<\/strong> applies. Specifically, Article 233(2) mandates a minimum of 7 years’ practice at the Bar<\/strong> for appointment as a district judge.<\/p>\nHowever, appointments to the lower judiciary<\/strong> \u2014 such as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class \u2014 are governed by Article 234<\/strong>, which delegates control of recruitment to State Public Service Commissions and respective High Courts. Article 234 places no such requirement, and judicial services exams across India have long allowed eligible law graduates (typically 21+) to compete directly after completing law school.<\/p>\nThis arrangement is not accidental. The framers intentionally allowed flexibility for the states in recruiting judges at the foundational tier. As such, any blanket national rule imposing Bar practice prerequisites<\/strong> for the lower judiciary stands at odds with not just precedent, but constitutional structure.<\/p>\nThe Supreme Court<\/strong>, in All India Judges\u2019 Association v. Union of India<\/em>, (1993) 4 SCC 288, while emphasizing regular training and upskilling of the subordinate judiciary, did not mandate prior Bar experience<\/strong> as a precondition \u2014 rather it asked for a well-equipped training framework post-recruitment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/span>The Myth of Experience: What Does the Bar Actually Teach?<\/span><\/h2>\nIt\u2019s assumed that a few years in practice at the Bar grants a candidate more empathy, better procedural clarity, and first-hand exposure to court working. But what exactly do these three years entail?<\/p>\n
For many, they involve menial court tasks, limited speaking opportunities, and deep financial insecurity. The first three years in litigation are often void of meaningful exposure unless one lands in a prestigious chamber. There\u2019s little instructional consistency. No metrics. No minimum guaranteed mentorship.<\/p>\n
Worse still, this assumption ignores the invisible structure of privilege<\/strong> at the Bar. Senior lawyers often prefer candidates who\u2019re from similar backgrounds, communities or language groups. First-generation aspirants<\/strong>, those not based in metros, or women<\/strong> trying to balance societal expectations, often get excluded<\/strong> or struggle to sustain themselves in unpaid roles.<\/p>\nLitigation success in early years is resource-dependent \u2014 not meritocratic.<\/strong> Making prior practice a condition for eligibility creates a two-tiered access structure<\/strong>, pushing those from under-resourced backgrounds out of the system before they even begin.<\/p>\n<\/span>Judicial Training: The Real School of Judging<\/span><\/h2>\nUnlike the informal world of bar practice, judicial training is structured, monitored, and evolving<\/strong>. Candidates who qualify for the judiciary undergo 9\u201312 months of residential training<\/strong>, including:<\/p>\n\n- Shadowing sitting judges, from magistrates to High Court justices<\/li>\n
- Judgment writing exercises<\/li>\n
- Exposure to criminal and civil trial procedures<\/li>\n
- Modules on ethics, evidence, technology integration, and legal aid<\/li>\n
- Mock courtrooms, mediation, and interviewing techniques<\/li>\n
- Ongoing performance evaluation and mentoring by High Court judges<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This institutional training can (and often does) produce better preparedness<\/strong> than random exposure in unregulated practice environments.<\/p>\nJustice Kurian Joseph, in various addresses to judicial academies, emphasized that judicial temperament, ethics, and neutrality<\/strong> are cultivated within the judiciary, not automatically inherited from years spent as lawyers.<\/p>\n<\/span>Comparative Perspectives \u2013 Are Young Judges So Uncommon?<\/span><\/h2>\nAcross jurisdictions, young entry to judicial institutions<\/strong> is not abnormal. In countries like France<\/strong> and Germany<\/strong>, judges are recruited directly through judicial schools, much like India\u2019s state judicial academies. These nations prioritize training, ethical standards, and intellectual capabilities<\/strong>, not just years clocked in legal practice.<\/p>\nNotably, the IAS and IPS<\/strong>, India\u2019s own elite public service arms, select candidates aged 21 to 26 to manage land laws, handle policing, and even negotiate social conflict. They\u2019re trusted to deliver justice uniquely \u2014 through administration.<\/p>\nA judicial magistrate at 26, subject to oversight and with jurisdictional limits, cannot logically be seen as more dangerous than a sub-divisional magistrate or police superintendent of the same age group. Surely, judicial maturity is not tethered to age alone<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/span>Case Law, Performance, and Retention<\/span><\/h2>\nEmpirical data from state High Courts suggests that younger judges<\/strong> are as competent, if not more committed, to long-term careers in the judiciary\u2014presenting lower turnover and better ethical records<\/strong> in preliminary assessments conducted post-training stages.<\/p>\nIn K.C. v. State of Jharkhand<\/em> (2020), the Jharkhand High Court rejected an amendment that sought to exclude fresh law graduates from eligibility for judicial service, citing it as “unconstitutional and discriminatory.”<\/strong><\/p>\nWhile not every young judge shines, the same applies to every generation. Experience, after all, guarantees nothing \u2014 moral strength, integrity, and inclination toward justice<\/strong> do.<\/p>\n<\/span>A System Designed for Exclusion?<\/span><\/h2>\nIf the Bar is truly a filter of merit, why do so many opt out of it? Law firms, bureaucratic services, corporate compliance, and academia attract top-tier law graduates because they offer structure, security, and transparency<\/strong> \u2014 attributes the Bar lacks for juniors.<\/p>\nBy forcing them into a system tilted toward networks over knowledge<\/strong>, we risk losing legal talent to domains outside the judicial pipeline.<\/p>\nShould the system unintentionally devalue judicial service by making aspirants wait longer (with minimal interim support), those who stay will be those who can afford to stay<\/strong> \u2014 deepening inequalities within public institutions.<\/p>\n<\/span>Conclusion<\/span><\/h2>\nA three-year practice requirement may seem like an investment in training. But in truth, it is more likely to function as a barrier<\/strong> \u2014 accessible to some, forbidding to others. If our goal is to create a compassionate, competent, and committed judiciary<\/strong>, we need to rethink what we mean by preparation.<\/p>\nInstead of rejecting young aspirants, we must mentor them inside the system<\/strong>. Build stronger judicial academies, offer structured apprenticeships, institute mentor-mentee models, and create longitudinal assessments over the first five years of judgeship.<\/p>\nJustice isn\u2019t the privilege of the seasoned. It is the craft of the accountable.<\/strong><\/p>\nLet\u2019s not raise the ladder to the bench any higher. Let\u2019s plant more steps to reach it \u2014 and ensure that talent, not tenure<\/strong>, decides who gets there.
\nWritten By: Harsh Dutt, <\/b>Final Year Law Student – Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune
\nEmail:\u00a0harshdutt27@gmail.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The fan above was spinning noisily \u2014 one of those old hostel fans that rattles louder than it cools. A boy, maybe 23, still in his black coat from moot court trials, sat cross-legged on the floor, half-eaten cup noodles by his side, scribbling case names onto yellow sticky notes stuck all over the wall.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":160,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[95],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-5666","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-supreme-court","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5666","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/160"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}