On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court restored the requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice for candidates aspiring to join the judiciary as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

The decision passed in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India mandates that fresh law graduates must now accumulate at least three years of courtroom experience before appearing for judicial service exams.

The Court emphasised that practical exposure to the nuances of courtroom proceedings is essential to prepare judicial officers for the real-world challenges they will face. The aim is to foster a more competent and mature judiciary, one that is not merely theoretically sound, but also practically adept.

While the objective behind the ruling is to uphold judicial quality, the unintended consequences, particularly for women aspirants, warrant closer scrutiny.

In 2002, the Supreme Court had struck down the mandatory practice requirement, allowing fresh law graduates to directly appear for judicial exams. This move was widely celebrated for opening up opportunities to a broader demographic, including first-generation lawyers, women and students from underprivileged backgrounds. The 2025 ruling reverses that.

The brunt of this rule change is expected to fall disproportionately on women.

According to the latest National Family Health Survey (NFHS) data of 2019-21, the median age at first marriage for women in India is 19.2 years, while for men it is significantly higher at 24.9 years. When this data is viewed alongside the typical timeline of legal education and career entry, a concerning disparity becomes evident. Even if we remove the time required for preparation of these exams, most law students complete their five-year integrated law degree around the age of 22. With the reinstated rule mandating three years of legal practice before appearing for judicial service examinations, candidates effectively become eligible only at 25 or later. While this timeline may not pose a significant barrier for many men, whose average age at marriage aligns with or exceeds this period, it creates a major hurdle for women. For a large segment of female aspirants, particularly those from traditional or rural backgrounds, this phase coincides with intense social and familial pressure to marry and prioritise domestic life. As a result, many capable women may be forced to abandon or delay their judicial ambitions before they even become eligible to compete.

The assumption that three years of advocacy is a neutral requirement overlooks the entrenched gender biases that continue to pervade the legal profession. Women entering litigation often face harassment in court corridors, ranging from subtle hostility to overt misconduct. The profession's demanding schedule - with unpredictable hours, late-night case preparations and court appearances - further disadvantages women, especially in the absence of adequate maternity support and family-friendly workplace policies.

Networking and mentorship opportunities, which are essential for career progression in litigation, are more often than not concentrated in male-dominated professional circles, making it even harder for women, particularly those from marginalised communities, to find accessible, safe, and equitable pathways for growth.

Moreover, the early years of legal practice are commonly marked by “brief-less” work, where junior lawyers, especially those without strong social or professional capital, may not receive meaningful courtroom exposure or practical learning. In this context, mandating a three-year practice period becomes less a means of professional training and more a gatekeeping mechanism that systematically filters out many capable, committed women from even entering the judiciary.

To ensure that judicial reforms enhance both quality and inclusivity, a more nuanced approach must replace the one-size-fits-all litigation requirement.

One effective alternative could be to allow fresh law graduates to qualify for judicial exams through structured judicial internships or apprenticeships under the mentorship of senior judges or legal professionals, thereby offering meaningful exposure to judicial functioning without the uncertainties of full-time litigation.

A parallel entry track for underrepresented candidates, including women and first-generation lawyers, could help bridge structural inequities by adjusting the practice requirement to their socio-economic realities.

Additionally, reforms within litigation itself are essential to create a more equitable and inclusive legal system. One of the most urgent needs is to improve court safety for women. In many courtrooms, women still face harassment - both subtle and overt - and are often expected to navigate hostile environments with limited support. The implementation of stringent anti-harassment mechanisms in courts, along with zero-tolerance policies for misconduct, would help in creating safer working conditions for women. This could include establishing independent complaints mechanisms, regular training for legal professionals and judges on gender sensitivity, and ensuring timely investigations into allegations of harassment.

Furthermore, making it mandatory to offer stipends or honorariums for junior lawyers would provide necessary financial support during the early years of practice, which are often marked by long working hours and low initial pay. These stipends could make it more feasible for young women to remain in the profession, particularly those from marginalised socio-economic backgrounds.

The current landscape is marked by a proliferation of law schools, many of which lack adequate faculty, infrastructure or curriculum standards. Without addressing this uneven quality in legal education, especially in tier 2 and tier 3 cities, judicial reforms will remain inaccessible to a vast section of aspiring lawyers. Strengthening accreditation processes, enforcing minimum standards and ensuring greater accountability from legal institutions are essential steps in preparing students from all backgrounds for both practice and the judiciary.

The judiciary must reflect the society it serves. While the intention behind the three-year rule is to improve the quality of judges, we must ask, at what cost, and to whom?

Unless we recognise and address the gendered implications of this ruling, we risk creating a judiciary that is more experienced but less diverse. True reform must blend rigour with empathy, excellence with equity. After all, it should not be just about who makes it to the bench - but also about who gets left behind.

Shailesh K Rajora is an advocate practicing at the Supreme Court of India.