Is 3 year Practice Mandatory For Judiciary Exam[Civil Judge Exam] in 2025? Latest News

Overview: 3 years of mandatory practice for Judiciary exams and how it affects potential judges. It is one issue that picked up momentum in the latest days, particularly post-April 1st when it further became a subject of interest in the legal fraternity. 

Download FREE Notes for Judiciary by Judiciary Gold

Realizing the Problem: Is 3 Years Practice Enough for Judiciary Exams? 

It's important to appreciate that the practice of law is one of the most challenging and demanding activities in the legal field. As we know, being a lawyer is also as tough as becoming a judge. It takes dedication and years of experience to acquire the skills of locating, analyzing, and presenting cases in court. This leads to the problem of mandatory practice for judicial candidates. 

The issue of 3 years of mandatory practice has been the subject of discussion for months now, drawing attention following a Supreme Court case. However, it is hardly a new discussion, going back as it does to 1993, when the Supreme Court initially introduced the requirement of 3 years of practice for judicial aspirants.

It remained a rule for many years and was only revoked in 2003 following the recommendations of the Shetty Commission when the rule of mandatory practice was abolished. And yet here we are again, debating the application of this requirement in view of the current discussion and cases relating to judicial remuneration and demand for experience. 

Prepare Now: Join the best Judiciary Faculty for Upcoming exams

The Realities of Practicing Law: It's Not All Books and Exams

Practicing law is not reading books and studying for exams. It's working with real life problems—handling cases, getting to know clients' issues, and making strong cases in court. Without experience, it is difficult to comprehend the complications of court procedures and interpretations of the law. 

Ground Realities of Court Operations

For fresh judges, particularly those joining the bench in transition from the role of a lawyer to that of a judge, ground realities of court functioning can be quite intimidating. It is important to learn the court’s working, handle the cases, and keep the bench-bar relationship in perspective. Experience in this can come solely through practice. 

Training Rather Than Practice for Maintaining the Quality in Judiciary

An interesting argument made by experts is that a 3-year judicial aspirant training program may replace 3 years of practice. This training may include all aspects of court administration, case management, and legal procedure that would otherwise be acquired through practice. This would enable aspirants to become proficient without automatically needing years of active practice. 

What's in it for upcoming judges?

Let's discuss what this argument truly implies for the budding judges. If this mandatory 3-year practice comes back in force, it may greatly affect the eligibility of candidates sitting for judicial exams. Some may be barred from sitting for the exams because of their practice experience, while others may experience delays in their career advancement due to the extended experience requirement. 

Following are a few of them: 

Less Experienced Candidates Can Be Excluded: Less experienced candidates, yet to meet the 3-year practice requirement, risk exclusion from eligibility, which means less skilled candidates may join the profession upon completion of the mandatory requirement. 

Depending on the length of experience needed, candidates might wait longer to be considered for judicial exams, thus increasing their wait in advancing in their career. 

This might act as a roadblock in the career:

For candidates that are presently working and have experience yet lack practice, it may present an additional obstacle that may cause difficulties in pursuing their dreams of becoming a judge. Several candidates may complete law school and gain a strong legal awareness yet fail to meet the requirement of practice time, putting their judicial career on standby.

If the Supreme Court decides to mandatorily impose 3 years of practice, it would definitely change the recruitment procedure of judicial exams nationwide. A significant point to keep in mind is that the starting point of the mandatory practice would be made clear—whether it is the day of enrollment in the bar, or any other official registering day. 

The possibility of change and likely solutions

1. Clarification on Counting of Practice: We require clarity on whether practice length is to be counted from local bar enrollments, or solely from national certifications such as the All India Bar Exam. 
2. Introduce Compulsory Training: Replacing the mandatory practice with mandatory training in judicial institutes or academies is suggested by certain experts. This would ensure aspirants acquire firsthand knowledge without waiting years in a law firm. 
3. Regular Notification Updates: Timely notifications and regular updates by judicial institutions are needed in order to prevent delays and confusion. Aspirants need not wait years for recruitment exams. 

This controversy over mandatory 3 years of experience had many eyes opened to the plight of would-be judges in India. Whether it becomes mandatory again or not remains in the hands of the Supreme Court, though one thing is certain: the future of judicial hiring needs to be in providing the appropriate balance of practical experience versus theoretical knowledge.

If you are a budding judiciary aspirant, our recommendation is to remain committed to your preparation. Regardless of whether or not the rule changes, your exam preparation, study of the law, and exposure to practical experience will always be the determinants of success. Tune in for additional news on this topic, and don't hesitate to contact us if you have any queries or opinions that come to mind! 

At the core of the current debate is whether practical courtroom experience is essential before one becomes a judge. The Supreme Court’s recent hearings have reignited this issue, especially during deliberations over judicial salaries, allowances, and reforms. 

Proponents argue that experience on the ground ensures that a future judge understands the realities of the system—be it managing caseloads, engaging with advocates, or overseeing daily court functions. On the other hand, critics of the requirement question whether such experience is indispensable in today’s changing legal landscape. 

Conclusion:

This debate has opened our eyes to a key question—how do we ensure that our future judges are both well-informed and well-prepared? 

While the Supreme Court’s verdict will determine the official course, as aspirants and educators, our focus must remain on preparation, clarity, and adaptability. The road to the judiciary was never meant to be easy, but it must always be just. 

To those preparing to wear the black robe, we urge you—keep studying, keep learning, and most importantly, keep believing in your dream. Whether or not the 3-year mandate returns, your discipline and understanding of the law will always be your greatest strength.