THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court’s 20 May 2025 ruling in All India Judges’ Association (IV) v. Union of India reinstates the 1993 requirement that a candidate must have “not less than three years’ active practice as an advocate” to sit for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination, reversing its 2002 position. The decision has reignited debate on how best to balance “access to the Bench” with “quality of justice” — two core pillars of access-to-justice jurisprudence and India’s Constitutional mandate under Articles 233–235.
THE BACKGROUND:
-
- Historical line-up – The First Law Commission (14th Report, 1958) recommended 3–5 years of Bar experience for the subordinate judiciary on the grounds of experiential learning and public confidence.
- Statutory vacuum – States frames recruitment rules under Article 234, but two decades of inconsistent practice followed the Court’s 2002 dilution, prompting 23 High Courts and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to flag widespread “inexperience-induced delay”.
- Systemic stress test – India disposes barely 9.2 cases/judge/day against an inflow of 12.3, leaving 5.1 crore pending cases. Vacancies in the district judiciary touched 21 percent on 1 May 2025.
LEGAL & CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
| Provision | Essence | Key Takeaways |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 233 | The Governor appoints District Judges in consultation with the High Court | Co-operative federalism in judicial appointments |
| Art. 234 | State Public Service Commissions + High Courts prescribe eligibility for civil judges. | The locus of rulemaking is questioned in the present verdict |
| Art. 235 | High Court’s control over subordinate courts | Training, appraisal, and discipline are anchored here |
DRIVERS BEHIND THE REFORM
-
- Quality Deficit – BCI’s 2021 survey recorded 42 percent of first-year judges seeking clarification on basic evidence law.
- Training Bottleneck – State Judicial Academies average a trainee-faculty ratio of 52 : 1, well above the National Judicial Academy’s recommended 15 : 1 norm.
- Bar–Bench disconnect – Early entrants reportedly lack courtroom etiquette, slowing proceedings and eroding public trust.
CURRENT SCENARIO & EMPIRICAL SNAPSHOT
| Indicator (2025) | Value | Source | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Women in district judiciary | 38.3 % | India Justice Report 2025 | Gender mainstreaming progress |
| Judges per million population | 15 | IJR 2025 | Far below Law Commission 1987 norm of 50 |
| Average workload per judge | 2200 cases; peaks > 4000 in U.P. & Kerala | IJR 2025 | Caseload crisis |
THE CHALLENGES:
Operational
-
- Tokenistic certification – No uniform yardstick to verify “meaningful” three-year practice; risks proxy affidavits.
- Training–Practice Trade-off – Extended practice may shrink the window for formal pedagogy at Judicial Academies, perpetuating heterogeneity.
Social Equity
-
- Class & Gender Filter – Unpaid junior practice disproportionately burdens first-generation lawyers and women who value the judiciary for its early-career stability.
- Regional Disparity – Smaller bars (e.g., North-East) may not offer adequate litigation volume, throttling local talent.
Governance & Federalism
-
- Judicial Overreach? – Critics label the verdict “court-crafted policy”, arguing that eligibility is an executive-legislative preserve under Article 234.
- Fragmented Implementation – States differ in recognising corporate counsel, legal-aid lawyers, or law clerks as “practice”, creating forum shopping.
IMPLICATIONS FOR GOVERNANCE
-
- Access to Justice – Better-trained judges can enhance qualitative disposal, but a narrower talent pipeline risks aggravating vacancy ratios.
- Judicial Independence – Experienced appointees may resist executive pressure better, aligning with separation-of-powers doctrine.
- Inclusive Governance – Diversity goals may stall if the reform is not paired with affirmative facilitation measures.
THE WAY FORWARD:
| Tier | Recommendation | Rationale | Execution Cue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Recruitment | Judicial Apprenticeship Scheme (JAS) — a two-year paid residency under senior advocates, funded by the Nyaya Saksham Kosh | Marries practical exposure with livelihood security | Union–State cost-sharing (60:40) under the National Mission for Justice Delivery |
| Recruitment | Digital Litigation Logbook (DiLL) linked to e-Courts to auto-verify appearances, orders & pleadings | Eliminates sham certificates; uses blockchain audit trail | e-Committee of SC to integrate with CIS 3.0 |
| Training | Competency-based Modular Curriculum: AI-enabled docket simulation, judgment writing labs, behavioural science inputs | Converts “seat-time” into skill-time | National Judicial Academy to certify modules; credit-bank transferable across States |
| Career Progression | Differential Pay Band + Fast-Track Promotion for recruits with ≥7 years Bar experience | Attracts mid-career experts; mitigates attrition | 7th Judicial Pay Commission to notify the new matrix |
| Diversity Safeguard | Practice-Subsidy Vouchers for women, SC/ST/OBC, and rural candidates during the three-year period | Offsets economic barriers; aligns with SDG 16.3 | Ministry of Social Justice to administer via DBT |
| Structural Reform | All India Judicial Service (AIJS) with zonal cadres, standard eligibility, and transparent exam calendar | Standardises criteria, addresses vacancies. | Requires Article 312 resolution + Central Act; supported by recent calls from experts |
| Monitoring & Evaluation | Outcome Dashboard publishing disposal rate, reversal rate, and litigant feedback for each cohort | Data-driven policy corrections; public accountability | National Judicial Data Grid to host annual “Cohort Report Cards” |
THE CONCLUSION:
The three-year practice mandate is necessary but not sufficient. Without a holistic ecosystem — including financial cushions, verified exposure, modern pedagogy, and calibrated incentives — the rule may become a bureaucratic hurdle rather than a quality filter. A blended model that couples measured experience with robust training and equity safeguards offers the most promising path to a judiciary that is both competent and representative, thereby advancing the Constitution’s promise of “effective, speedy and inclusive justice”.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities. 2020
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. “The Supreme Court’s restoration of a three-year minimum practice requirement for entry-level judicial officers seeks to raise judicial competence but may impede diversity and exacerbate vacancies.” Critically examine.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word