The Reintroduction of the Three-year Bar Practice Requirement – A Welcome Step for Indian judiciary

Author: Dharmendra D Jadhav & Shalu D Jadhav, practising advocates at the Bombay High Court.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's recent judgment in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (2025 INSC 735) is truly a game-changer, a landmark decision that promises to bring about some much-needed recalibration in how we select and promote our judges. What really stands out, and quite rightly so, is the reintroduction of that crucial minimum three-year practice at the Bar for anyone aspiring to become a Civil Judge (Junior Division). This decision, deeply rooted in the ground realities of our legal profession and drawing strength from the rich history of the "All India Judges' Association cases," is a wonderfully practical step. It's about ensuring that the very foundation of our judiciary is manned by individuals equipped not just with theoretical knowledge, but with invaluable hands-on experience.

The reintroduction of the three-year bar practice requirement, which was previously diluted in the Third AIJA Case (All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247), is a crucial and well-reasoned aspect of the current judgment. The Court's acknowledgment that the appointment of fresh law graduates, without prior exposure to the rigors of court proceedings, has led to practical difficulties for these young judicial officers is particularly insightful. This observation underscores a critical truth: the theoretical understanding of law, while essential, cannot fully prepare a judge for the intricate, often unpredictable, and intensely human dimensions of courtroom realities.

Let's be frank, without those three years of experience as an advocate, a candidate aspiring for a judicial post will inevitably lacks a critical understanding of the sheer practical difficulties inherent in our profession. This becomes especially apparent when they're faced with those intrinsic and indeed complex legal problems. A courtroom isn't just a place where laws are quoted; it's a living, breathing arena where legal principles clash with real-life experiences, where even tiny procedural nuances can have a profound impact on actual justice, and where a judge's effectiveness often hinges on their ability to expertly navigate these intricate complexities.

An advocate's initial years at the Bar are incredibly formative. It's during this period that an individual genuinely gains first-hand experience in so many vital areas:

• Courtroom Procedures and Etiquette: Beyond just reading the bare text of procedural codes, a practicing advocate learns the unwritten rules, the rhythm, and the proper decorum of the court. These are invaluable insights that simply cannot be gleaned from textbooks alone. It's about understanding the pulse of the court.
• Witness Handling and Evidence Appreciation: Advocates learn the art of presenting and cross-examining witnesses, picking up on the subtle cues in testimony, and critically evaluating whether evidence is admissible and how much weight it carries. These are skills that are absolutely paramount for any good judge.
• Understanding Litigant Perspectives: Directly dealing with clients, grasping their grievances, and guiding them through the often-confusing legal process provides a deep sense of empathy for the human side of disputes. This empathy is not just good to have; it's vital for a judge who has to balance legal principles with the need for fair and equitable outcomes.
• Anticipating Arguments and Counter-Arguments: Engaging in legal battles, meticulously drafting pleadings, and arguing cases against seasoned opponents hones the ability to anticipate various legal positions and their potential counter-arguments. This skill is essential for a judge in deftly guiding proceedings and delivering truly comprehensive judgments.
• Time Management and Docket Control: Advocates, especially those just starting out, quickly learn how to manage multiple cases, meet strict deadlines, and prioritize tasks. These are skills that are directly transferable and incredibly beneficial for a judge who has to manage a typically heavy docket.
• Ethical Dilemmas and Professional Conduct: Those early years at the Bar expose individuals to various ethical challenges and strongly emphasize the importance of maintaining the highest standards of professional conduct. This experience goes a long way in shaping their judicial temperament and overall integrity.

The First AIJA Case, All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 119, even though it primarily focused on broader service conditions, implicitly recognized the unique nature and demands of judicial service. This was further cemented by the Second AIJA Case, All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, which very firmly rejected the idea of equating judicial service with administrative executive functions, strongly asserting the judiciary’s status on par with the political executive to safeguard its independence. These earlier pronouncements clearly set the stage for acknowledging that a judicial post demands a different, perhaps more nuanced, set of qualifications than those typically associated with administrative roles. And critically, this present judgment, by re-emphasizing practical experience, perfectly aligns with this foundational understanding of what makes judicial service truly distinctive.

Appreciation where it is due, that the decision is wonderfully pragmatic. The Court's smart provision for counting the three-year period from the date of provisional enrolment with a State Bar Council, coupled with a solid certification mechanism involving a 10-year standing advocate and endorsement by designated judicial officers, is a sensible measure designed to prevent mere “paper practice.” This practical framework ensures that the experience gained is genuine, meaningful, and not just a formality.

What’s more, the overall emphasis on meritocracy, evident in the restoration of the 25% LDCE quota for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service (a welcome return to the directives of the Third AIJA Case and a reversal of the Fourth AIJA Case's dilution), along with the introduction of a new 10% LDCE quota for promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division), beautifully complements the three-year bar practice requirement. Together, these measures are building a judiciary that is not just academically sound but also practically adept and consistently incentivized to excel. The Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) 17 SCC 703 case, which rightly highlighted the urgent need for timely and streamlined judicial appointments to tackle pendency, lends further weight to the current judgment's sincere efforts to ensure that only truly qualified and experienced individuals fill judicial roles without unnecessary delays.

In essence, the Supreme Court, through this latest judgment, has wisely recognized that effective judicial decision-making, especially in those complex cases, requires far more than just legal knowledge. It truly demands an intuitive grasp of human nature, a practical understanding of legal processes, and the foresight to understand the implications of judicial pronouncements on real lives. The three-year bar practice requirement isn’t just another hurdle; it’s a foundational investment in the future quality of justice, although it create some difficulties for the candidates who are currently preparing for the judicial posts, it’s about ensuring that our new judges step onto the bench with the practical wisdom necessary to dispense justice with both sharp legal acumen and profound empathy. This forward-looking approach solidly establishes this judgment as a highly beneficial and absolutely necessary reform for the Indian judicial system.

Link to the Judgement: https://legalwiki.co/article/supreme-court-increases-ldce-quota-for-district-judge-promotions-to-25/

To read more, visit legalwiki.co