Adarsh R

The recent judgement of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Ors Vs. Union of India and others, 2025 INSC 735, whereby the Supreme Court has reinstated three-year experience at bar as a condition precedent for selection of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has invited a lot of discussions among the legal fraternity as well as the public.

Judges are ‘hermits’, they exercise ‘sovereign judicial power’

Before dwelling into the judgement, let us analyse the standards expected from judicial officers and judiciary. Judiciary is considered as the protector of civil rights and fundamental rights. When executive and legislature exceed their power or when they act arbitrary, judiciary is often the last resort of common man. The apex court has time and again held that judicial officers impart the sovereign function of the state and thus, a comparison with other services are inappropriate.

In High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs Shashikanth S Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416, the apex court highlighted the difference between judicial services and other services. The Court observed that “The judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the state and its authority, unlike the bureaucracy or the members of the other service. Judicial service is not merely an employment nor the judges merely employees. They exercise the sovereign judicial power. They are holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility….”

Under the Bar Council of India rules, an advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the court, a privileged member of the community; and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an advocate. These attributes apply with stronger vigour to judicial officers.

In High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan VS Ramesh Chand Paliwal, (1998) 2 SCC 72, Judges have been described as ‘hermits…. they have to live and behave like hermits, who have no desire or aspiration, having shed it through penance. Their mission is to supply light and not to heat’

In Tarak Singh vs. Jyoti Basu, (2005) 1 SCC 201, the apex court observed that “There is nothing wrong in a judge having an ambition to achieve something, but if the ambition to achieve is likely to cause a compromise with his divine judicial duty, better not to pursue it. Because, if a judge is too ambitious to chieve something materially, he becomes timid. When he becomes timid there will be a tendency to make a compromise between his divine duty and his personal interest. There will be a conflict between interest and duty”

A judicial officer is expected to have high moral and ethical standard apart from wisdom and sound knowledge of law. The standards set by the Constitution and those expected by the society from the personnel serving in the temple of justice are high.

The Three-year Rule

The 116th and 117th Law Commission Reports recommended abolishing the statutory three-year minimum practice requirement for entry into the judiciary, reasoning that limited Bar experience was inadequate for ensuring judicial competence. Although the 118th Report acknowledged the requirement was non-essential, it suggested its continuance. In All India Judges’ Association & Ors. v. Union of India (1993), the Supreme Court upheld the requirement, mandating that only advocates with at least three years of practice be appointed to the State judiciary. However, this position was later reversed in All India Judges Association And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors 2002, when the Supreme Court endorsed the Shetty Commission’s recommendation to eliminate the practice mandate, holding that it discouraged meritorious candidates and diminished the judiciary's appeal among talented law graduates.

Appointment of Judges-Experience at Bar is the mandate

The eligibility and appointment criteria of the Supreme Court judges, the High Court judges and District judges are set out and dictated by the Constitution of India. Even though the Constitution mentions about subordinate judiciary, the manner of appointment and eligibility is not mentioned. The power is given to the concerned High Court in case of appointment of judicial officers other than District Judges.

Article 124 of the Constitution of India deals with appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. As per article 124(2) the judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President from the collegium recommendation. The collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, decide on appointments, elevation and transfer of judges.

The qualifications for appointment as the judge of Supreme Court of India are dealt under article 124(3) of the constitution. As per article 124(3), for appointment as a Judge of Supreme Court, a person

1. Must be a citizen of India

2. Must have served as a judge of a High Court for at least five years or two such court in succession

3. Alternatively, must have been an advocate of a High Court for at least 10 years or two or more such courts in succession

4. Or must be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President

It is interesting to note that no minimum age is prescribed by the constitution for appointment as judge of the Supreme Court. What is mandated is minimum practice years or service as a judge for 5 years in a High Court or must be a distinguished jurist.

Article 217 provides for eligibility to be appointed as a High Court Judge. Article 217(2) provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of the High Court unless he is a citizen of India and has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession.

It is to be noted that minimum age is not prescribed for appointment as Judge of High Court. What is mandated by the constitution is experience at the bar or experience as a judicial officer.

Now let us look into the constitutional provisions for appointment of District Judges. Article 233 of the Constitution deals with appointment of District Judge. As per article 233, appointment of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, District Judges in any state shall be made by the Governor of the state in consultation with the High Court exercising restriction in relation to such state. The article also mandate that a person will be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge only if he has had seven years practice as an advocate. Interestingly, no minimum age limit is prescribed by the constitution, even for the appointment as a District Judge. But, in almost all states, the minimum eligibility to become or to apply for the post of District Judge is 35 years of age and 7 years practice as an advocate.

35 years minimum age limit prescribed by High Court was challenged before the honourable Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi versus Devi Sharma (2022)4 SCC 643. The court held that 35 years minimum age limit prescribed by the High Court is not against article 233 of the Constitution. The court further held; “that the constitution does not preclude exercise of the rule making power by the High Court to regulate the conditions of service for appointment. The Constitution being silent in regard to the prescription of minimum age, the High Court in exercise of the rule making Authority are entitled to prescribe such requirement.”

The court also observed “It must be remembered that direct recruitment to the higher judicial services is intended to be from members of the bar who have sufficient experience. In fact, that is the reason why the Constitution stipulated at least seven years of practice as an advocate or a pleader. The High Court would be well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judicial services. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to subserve this.”

From the above, it is evident that the constitution makers wanted people of experience to be appointed as Judges. It was not age, not the knowledge derived alone from books, but the wisdom derived from experience as an advocate was the prime eligibility intended by the makers of the Constitution. That is why, even when there is no minimum age prescribed, the Supreme Court and High Courts has set 35 years and 45 years as minimum age to become a District Judge and High Court Judge respectively. The Constitution makers were fully aware of the duties, obligations and the functions that a judicial officer is expected to do, especially when it comes to protection of life and liberties of a person.

Discipline in the Judicial service- Views of High Courts

There was a total of eight issues framed with the Supreme Court in the All India judges Association (2025) case. Issue number seven and eight were with regard to the minimum eligibility to become a civil Judge junior division. The honourable court received feedback from almost all the High Courts and states. It can be seen that almost all the High Courts shared the opinion of restoring 3 years practice as a condition for appointment as Civil Judge.

Reading of paragraph 56 and 57 of the judgement shows that almost all High Courts batted for minimum practice at bar as a condition precedent for appointment as Civil Judge/ Magistrate. Most of the states suggested three years practice as a lawyer in addition to the law degree. The court observed that “recruitment of graduates as judicial of𝑓icers without any training or background of lawyering has not proved to be a successful experiment. The court further noted that from the 𝑓irst day of assuming of𝑓ice, a judge has to decide, among others, cost of life, liberty, property, and reputation of the litigants and inducting fresh graduates from the universities to seats of such vital powers was neither prudent nor desirable.”

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh submitted that civil judges who did not possess any experience at the bar appointed straight away from the college to the court are not treating the bar members and staff members in good spirit and that the officers are finding it difficult to handle the court when faced with procedure issues.

The state of Karnataka has submitted that due to the lack of practical and professional experience of Civil Judges, inconvenience is caused to proceedings of Principal District Judges.

The Madhya Pradesh HC has submitted that even candidates who are brilliant in academics having no experience at the bar were not able to handle court proceedings properly. It was also submitted that many oral or written complaints regarding their behaviour towards advocates, clients, their superiors and staffs are being received in the High Court on a regular basis. It was further submitted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that graduates having no experience at the bar lack maturity and experience in handling court proceedings.

The High Court of Orissa, submitted that inexperienced candidates take time to acquaint themselves to the environment of a court, which ultimately enables them to smoothly handle the day-to-day court proceedings. It is further stated that they are often unaware about the court decorum and this causes inconvenience in the judicial station.

The High Court of Uttarakhand has stated that fresh law graduates with no exposure to the court and environment are not steeped into the culture, etiquette and temper and conduct of the court proceeding. It further stated that this leads to advocate complaining about the misbehaviour and giving ill treatment to advocates and client by such new officers.

It can be seen that the High Courts across the country unanimously requested and submitted to restore the minimum three years practice at the bar as a precondition for appointment as civil judge. In para 81, the Supreme Court made an observation that appointment of fresh Law graduates as judicial officers without a single day of practice at the bar has not been a successful experience and such appointment of fresh law graduates has led to many problems as have been enumerated above.

Criticism against the Judgment

After the judgement was pronounced, there were criticisms from judicial aspirants. The criticisms were broadly based on two points. Firstly, since there is no minimum income guaranteed for a junior, it will be difficult for lawyers to survive the early career of three years at the bar. Secondly, it is said that it will negatively affect the prospects of women judicial aspirants. Both these arguments do not sound reasonable to the author since judicial examinations are not conducted to ensure that someone gets employed, but to ensure that justice is served.

The duty of civil Judge includes analysing facts, evidence, relevancy of evidence, admissibility of evidence, degree of proof of evidence and to apply complex legal procedure to ensure justice. Moreover, it is the duty of a magistrate to ensure that due process is followed in case of arrest. The constitution ensures that no person can be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. In case of arrest of a person, it is the duty of magistrate to ensure that the arrest and detention is not arbitrary and according to the law.

Members of the bar, especially senior members, often criticise that fresh law graduates are not able to analyse or appreciate relevancy and admissibility of facts. There are instances where the judicial officers have resisted to even write relevant questions asked by a lawyer during cross examination. This ultimately affects the rights and liberty of people. There are instances where the magistrate has granted custody of accused to police without even seeing the accused which resulted in custodial death. This can never be allowed to happen. The Apex court judgment can be seen as a correction course to ensure justice to all.

The Judgement has ensured quick career progression

While criticising the minimum three years practice, critics failed to appreciate that Supreme Court by this judgement made and ensured the career progression of meritorious judicial officers. Now civil Judge of junior division having three years of experience can become a civil judge of senior division through LDCE examination. Further, a civil Judge senior division having three years of experience can become a district judge/additional district judge through LDC. In effect, a meritorious candidate can become a district judge within seven years after probation, provided he/she has attained 35 years of age.

Conclusion

A report published by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy titled “Schooling, the judges, the selection and training of Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrate.” share the same opinion as that of the Supreme Court judgement. The report shares that not only are such candidates likely to have little to no experience at the bar, they are also unlikely to have significant life experiences having lived sheltered experience with their parents or on a university campus. The report cited the average age of new judges in the UK to make a comparison. The average age of new judges in India was found to be 26-27 years in all states, except Kerala, where it is 33 years. The average age in the UK is 58.8 years according to the report. In the UK, only one percentage of approximately 15,000 magistrates were found to be less than 30 years of age. The average age of a magistrate in France is around 48 years and in Australia, it is 46 years. It is to be noted that to become a judicial officer in Australia, one should have a law degree and 8 years of practice.

All these indicate that experience, both as a lawyer and human, matters in appointment of judges across the globe. Seemingly, it has become a practice and a ‘safe’ career path for law graduates in India to go to judicial coaching centres after graduation and appear for judicial examination and become a civil judge. The criticism that the present judgment will reduce the number of first-generation lawyers and women in judiciary is not reasonable, rather it will help them be better equipped to impart justice. Good judges are melted and refined through experience and wisdom from bar, not from coaching centres. The author ends this article by quoting paragraph 83 of the judgement-

“The Judges from the very day on which they assume office have to deal with the questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of litigants. As rightly observed, neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can

be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court-system and the administration of justice. This is possible only when a candidate is exposed to the atmosphere in the court by assisting the seniors and observing how the lawyers and the Judges function in the court. The candidate should be equipped to understand the intricacies of the functions of a Judge. The experience of various High Courts has also shown that such fresh law graduates, upon their entry in judicial service, begin to show behavioural and temperament problems.”

• The Author is a practicing Advocate of the Supreme Court of India

• The Author can be reached at: Email: adarshr1411@gmail.com

• NB.: The author certifies that the work is original. Views expressed are personal.