The SC’s three year practice ruling is a case study in ‘indirect discrimination’
The mandatory imposition of a three year mandatory practice in the Court’s recent All India Judges Association case exacerbates women’s already precarious position in India’s legal and judicial fraternity.
Pavan Kasturi
31 May 2025
RECENTLY, THE SUPREME COURT, in All India Judges Association (AIJA) v. Union of India (2025) deliberated on a seminal issue on the requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice for appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which the Court had abolished in the Third AIJA Case (2002).
This issue has long been debated, with conflicting perspectives. The Law Commission of India’s 117th Report (1986) supported fresh law graduates into judicial service but emphasised training to offset their lack of experience. Likewise, the Shetty Commission Report contended that modern legal education, especially the five-year degree’s practical training, made the three-year practice rule unnecessary, proposing institutional training instead. This view was later upheld by the top Court in the Third AIJA case.
However, the Supreme Court has reinstated the mandatory three-year legal practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants, emphasising that judicial officers handle critical matters of life, liberty, and property, requiring practical court experience.
The Law Commission of India’s 117th Report (1986) supported fresh law graduates into judicial service but emphasised training to offset their lack of experience.
A case for indirect discrimination
The reinstatement of this rule for judicial aspirants creates a structural barrier, especially for women, particularly at the crucial early-career stage when they are most likely to enter the judiciary. While facially neutral, the rule disproportionately disadvantages women aspirants.
Indian law graduates typically enter the profession at the age of 23-24. Mandating three additional practice years delays judicial eligibility to 26-27, where societal and familial pressures, especially for women, often push them away from demanding careers. The legal field in India is already riddled with nepotism and elitism, where success is often contingent on family connections, financial backing, and professional godfathers.
Today, the Supreme Court has only one woman judge, a shocking reflection of how structural inequity prevents women from ascending to the highest judicial offices. The severe gender gap in the higher judiciary exposes this systemic bias. With just one woman judge currently in the top Court, the institutional barriers blocking women's advancement becomes glaringly apparent. Furthermore, many skilled lawyers choose not to join judicial services even after three years of practice, much like successful advocates who prefer to continue their profession over becoming District Judges via the ADJ exam.
The financial unviability of litigation exacerbates this disparity. Junior advocates earn meager stipends (₹10,000-20,000). Compounding this struggle is the crushing burden of education loans; many law school graduates invest ₹12–20 lakhs in their five-year degrees, only to enter a system that offers little immediate financial stability.