Is the mandatory three-year Bar experience requirement for judicial eligibility a significant setback for aspiring judges or a progressive step forward for the judiciary?

Written by: Mehak Mehrotra, Corporate Lawyer

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court, led by a Bench of Chief Justice of India BR  Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, ruled that a minimum of three years of experience at the Bar is mandatory to qualify for the post of a judge. This decision has come as a source of dismay and disbelief for countless judicial aspirants who have been earnestly preparing for the entrance examination for years,  many of whom were hoping to enter the judiciary directly after completing their law degrees. 

The judgment has sparked numerous questions—some potentially favourable and others unfavourable—for both judicial aspirants and the government. To better understand its implications, let’s delve into whether the ruling ultimately serves the best interests of aspiring judges and the judiciary as a whole. 

➢ A Setback for the Next Generation of Judges? 

Whether this judgment places young judicial aspirants at a disadvantage is a pressing question that warrants serious consideration. It raises concerns about whether the ruling might dampen the hopes and dreams of young law graduates aspiring to join the judiciary—and whether it risks weakening the vision of a justice system that serves as a beacon of hope for the public seeking fairness and accountability. 

One of the major drawbacks of this judgment is the potential exploitation of young lawyers. 

With a mandatory three-year Bar experience requirement, many young legal professionals may be forced to work under senior advocates, often without fair stipends or recognition. This not only leaves them financially vulnerable but also emotionally disillusioned. By the end of this period, many may lose their passion for the law entirely.  This disinterest could result in the judiciary losing capable, motivated individuals who might have otherwise brought meaningful change to the system. 

Another significant drawback is the potential reinforcement of nepotism within the legal profession. Second-generation lawyers—whose families already have an established presence in the legal industry—may find it easier to secure placements and recommendations from prominent senior advocates. This could create an uneven playing field, where aspiring lawyers without such connections struggle to find meaningful opportunities, further widening the gap between privileged entrants and equally capable but underrepresented candidates.

This judgment is unlikely to significantly affect second-generation lawyers— for them, it may simply mean waiting three more years, often with family support and established networks to rely on. However, for young aspirants from rural or economically weaker backgrounds, the impact is far more profound. With limited means of livelihood and no influential connections, every year is crucial. For these candidates, the mandatory Bar experience could become a barrier rather than a stepping stone, potentially discouraging bright minds from ever pursuing a judicial career. 

Another significant drawback of this judgment is its potential to worsen the already severe backlog of cases in the Indian judiciary. Currently, India faces a staggering pendency crisis, with over 5.2 crore (52 million) cases awaiting resolution across various courts. Alarmingly, more than 1.8 lakh (180,000) of these cases have been pending for over 30 years in the district and high courts. The overwhelming majority—approximately 85%—are stuck in the district judiciary, the very level most impacted by this judgment. 

As of March 28, 2025, there are: 

• 355 vacant judicial positions in High Courts 

• 2 vacancies in the Supreme Court 

• 5,600 vacancies in total across all levels of the judiciary 

By mandating three years of Bar experience before entry into the judiciary, the recruitment pipeline could be slowed further, exacerbating existing vacancies. This directly contributes to delayed justice, overburdened courts, and growing public disillusionment with the legal system. The principle of "justice delayed is justice denied"  becomes more real each day such vacancies remain unfilled. 

At a time when speed, efficiency, and access to justice are paramount, policies that restrict the timely induction of judges, without a parallel plan to expedite recruitment, risk undermining the very purpose of the judiciary: to serve the people. 

Ultimately, this judgment may represent a major setback for the judiciary itself. By potentially discouraging dedicated and capable young aspirants, the system risks losing future judges who could have driven much-needed reforms and modernisation within the judicial structure. At a time when courts are overwhelmed with a staggering backlog of cases, the focus should be on strengthening the bench, not creating additional entry barriers. Without fresh talent and timely appointments, the ideal of delivering meaningful and timely justice to the public becomes increasingly elusive.

➢ Is this a progressive step towards holding the faith of the  Judiciary? 

While there are numerous arguments against the judgment, it is important to acknowledge that several valid points exist in its favour as well. Although the ruling has undeniably dampened the hopes of many young judicial aspirants, it also aims to enhance the quality and integrity of the judiciary. By requiring practical experience at the Bar, the judgment seeks to ensure that judges enter the system with a foundational understanding of legal practice, better equipping them to deliver informed and effective justice. 

Arguments in favour of the Judgment: 

• Quality and Experience: The requirement ensures that judges have practical,  hands-on experience in the legal field before assuming the bench. This experience is crucial for sound judicial decision-making and upholding the rule of law. 

• Professional Maturity: Exposure to real-world legal practice helps candidates develop a deeper understanding of procedural nuances, client management, and courtroom dynamics, contributing to more effective judges. 

• Judicial Integrity: Experienced lawyers are more likely to bring professionalism,  ethical awareness, and a sense of responsibility to the judiciary, reinforcing public trust. 

• Standardisation: The ruling promotes uniformity in qualifications, potentially elevating the overall standard of judicial officers across the country. 

CONCLUSION 

While many young lawyers are voicing strong criticism against this decision, others are praising it as a progressive step toward a more competent judiciary, led by judges with deeper legal understanding and practical experience. This is a judgment whose true impact can only be fully evaluated over time. Although a significant number of aspiring judges have expressed concerns and raised their voices in protest, the fact remains that the ruling is binding and must be adhered to. The legal community now stands at a crossroads—balancing the hopes of young aspirants with the long-term vision of strengthening the judicial system through experience-based appointments.