Lawyer’s perspective: Why 3-year practice requirement strengthens Judiciary

Rajnish Raina (Advocate
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh)

THE Supreme Court’s recent decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India to mandate three years of legal practice before becoming eligible for the judicial services marks a pivotal moment for the legal profession. While the ruling has sparked debate among fresh law graduates and academic institutions, from a practitioner’s standpoint, it is both timely and necessary.
As someone actively engaged in litigation, I have long observed the challenges faced by newly appointed judicial officers who come straight from law school. Though academically sound, many of them struggle with the procedural nuances of courtrooms how to manage a docket, maintain decorum, handle complex evidentiary matters, or exercise discretion judiciously. These are skills that cannot be taught in classrooms but must be absorbed through hands-on experience at the Bar.
Judges Are Not Just Adjudicators, But Courtroom Managers
Judicial work isn’t confined to understanding black-letter law; it involves managing emotions, egos, and ethical dilemmas daily. A young graduate, without exposure to how a senior advocate argues, how a judge manages pressure, or how cross-examinations unfold in real-time, may lack the maturity required for balanced adjudication.
Requiring three years of practice is not about gatekeeping. It’s about ensuring that those who don the judicial robe have first understood what it means to be on the other side of the bench.
The Quality of Judgments Will Improve
Another concern within the Bar has been the inconsistency and quality of judgments from lower courts. Experience at the Bar provides a practical lens through which a judge can better assess arguments and write well-reasoned orders. With this ruling, the judiciary stands to benefit from more grounded, informed adjudication.
Balancing Aspirations with Standards
This is not to say that the enthusiasm or ambition of young law graduates is misplaced. Many are bright, driven, and capable. But the Court has rightly prioritized institutional integrity and competence over immediate accessibility. Aspirants now know that entering the judiciary is not merely a career decision—it is a professional responsibility that demands prior service to the legal system.
Concerns About Delay Are Valid—but Surmountable
Yes, there will be short-term discomfort. Aspirants will have to wait and work. But this can also serve as a positive incentive: encouraging law graduates to gain experience, perhaps even in underrepresented districts or trial courts, before entering the system as judges.
Legal aid work, trial advocacy, and pro bono service can all form part of this experience. It may even foster a stronger connection between future judges and the litigants they will eventually serve.
In Conclusion
The judgment is not a barrier; it’s a filter. One that ensures that those who rise to the Bench do so with a tested understanding of the law in action, not just in theory. As officers of the court, we welcome this move because a better-prepared judiciary ultimately leads to a more just society.