Before You Judge You Must Plead - Supreme Court’s Recent Judgement On Judicial Entry
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
BEFORE YOU JUDGE YOU MUST PLEAD: SUPREME
COURT’S RECENT JUDGEMENT ON JUDICIAL ENTRY
Ms. G. Shravya, NMIMS Indore Ms. Riya Goyal, NMIMS Indore
ABSTRACT
This article critically examines the Supreme Court of India’s recent mandate requiring a minimum of three years' courtroom experience for candidates aspiring to become Civil Judges (Junior Division). While the judgment aims to enhance judicial competence by grounding judges in real-world litigation, it raises important questions about access, equity, and representation. The decision, though well-intentioned, risks sidelining deserving candidates, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds, rural areas, and nonlitigation legal careers—and may disproportionately impact women entering the profession. Arguing that judicial reform should not come at the cost of inclusivity, this article advocates for alternative pathways such as structured training, mentorship, and equitable exposure to legal practice.
A judiciary that is both competent and representative, the article concludes, can only be built through inclusive, not exclusionary, reform.
Before you judge, you must plead-These words are no longer just a courtroom metaphor, or a philosophical abstraction. They are now the law of land. In a recent landmark judgement delivered on 20 May 2025, in the case All India Judges Association v. Union of India1, Supreme Court of India held that no candidate can aspire to become a civil judge (Junior division) without having completed at least three years of practice as an advocate. It doesn’t just alter the path to the judiciary, instead it asks every aspiring judge to walk that path with a little more dust on their shoes and a little more life behind their words. For many years, the judiciary has opened its gates for fresh law graduates who were smart, well spoken and were having a lot of academic achievements but had no or very little experience of how things work in a courtroom.
The result in this situation is such that there is a disconnect. Judges who had never filed a vakalatnama were now expected to command courtrooms and resolve complex disputes. Instead, it must be felt. This feeling can be only understood when one practices law. During the colonial period becoming a judge meant first spending time as a practising lawyer, the logic behind this was such that those who stood before the judge are better prepared to become one, this continued till the early 2000s but in 2002, All India Judges Association and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (21. 03. 2002 - SC)2, allowed fresh Law graduates to sit for judicial exams, hoping to bring in young minds .
Over the time, though the concerns were such that the judges with no courtroom experience were struggling, many led confidence and gave poor reason, judgement and applied the law mechanically without contextual understanding of it. During this time bar Council and the senior advocates began urging a reconsideration of the 2002 judgement they called it a shortcut into power without process. The Court ruled that a law degree alone is insufficient for judicial service. Instead, candidates must now demonstrate actual practice in courtrooms for at least three years. Some of the key directives from the judgment include : 1. Mandatory three-year courtroom practice before appearing for the civil judge exam. 2. A certificate of practice, either from a senior advocate (with at least 10 years' standing) or a judicial officer, attesting to the candidate’s active legal practice.
1 2025 INSC 735
2 MANU/SC/1411/2002
3. The Court clarified that corporate or non-litigation legal work does not count unless the role involves significant courtroom exposure. 4. States that had allowed direct recruitment post-LLB must now amend their recruitment rules to align with this directive. However, the Court left space for statespecific exceptions based on local service rules, provided the integrity of the practice requirement is not diluted. The idea behind this was simple - those who have stood before judges, who have understood the anxiety of litigation, who have fought for justice, are more equipped to deliver it are more better as compare to the fresh law graduates who have little or no real experience of how a real courtroom works like, what it takes to deliver a judgement and how tough sometimes it gets to give the right verdict.
By delivering this judgement the court has not created a hurdle but rather a bridge between the legal theory and the courtroom reality. The emotional complexity of those appearing before the bench—whether victim or accused—can only be truly understood by a legal professional who has engaged with the system, experienced its pressures, and developed the insight to identify the truth and uphold justice. The ruling also aims to change the mindset of the students treating judicial services just like any other competitive exam without having faced the practice of courtroom. It serves as a reminder that becoming a judge is not merely about clearing an exam that secures one’s future.
To reinforce this approach, globally too, mature democracies like the United States and the United Kingdom mandate prior legal practice before allowing entry into the judiciary This underlines the belief that courtroom experience is not optional, but foundational to fair and competent adjudication. As stated by justice P. S Narasimha- “Judging is not just a legal process, but a lived experience. The process of advocacy is indispensable to developing judicial temperament. ” Yet, despite its constructive objectives, the judgment has stirred a significant debate within legal circles, raising important questions about its broader implication. This judgment not only questions the ability of fresh law graduates but also appears to cast doubt on the integrity of currently serving judges who were appointed directly after completing law school, without the mandate of three years of practice.
While the Supreme Court's judgment projects an image of fairness, a deeper analysis suggests that this perception may not hold upon closer scrutiny. As being a judge is more than just knowing the law but about understanding people, pressure, arguments and even courtroom chaos ,this is not something which can be learnt from books or law school lectures. Real courtroom teaches patience, empathy, and the art of listening before deciding—its practical implications raise serious concerns. Firstly, the mandated three years of legal practice are not uniform in substance or value. While some young advocates are fortunate to argue cases early on, many others spend these years handling clerical work or assisting seniors without receiving meaningful mentorship or practical learning. There is currently no system in place to assess whether this "experience" is truly enriching or merely procedural.
This problem is further exacerbated by the absence of fair stipends, exploitative working hours, and little to no institutional support, which collectively make it difficult for many young advocates to grow meaningfully within the profession. Secondly, this decision reinforces systemic elitism. The rule may Hurt students from poor and rural backgrounds. Many students from this section rely on judicial exams for a stable future. Requiring three years of often underpaid or unpaid practice makes the path inaccessible, pushing many candidates out of the system due to financial strain. Thirdly, the mandate can become a gender barrier.
Women in law already face structural challenges such as harassment, lack of mentorship, safety issues, and societal pressures to settle down early etc Forcing them into an uncertain, low-paid profession for years without assurance of progress may push many talented women out of the judicial pipeline altogether. It also unintentionally sidelines competent legal professionals who chose non-litigation careers like Corporate lawyers, in-house counsels, legal academics, legal aid professionals, or those working in think tanks, NGOs, or policy institutions may have in-depth legal understanding and real-world legal insights—but they are now disqualified simply because they didn’t “stand before a judge. ” It sends a narrow and outdated message that only courtroom warriors can judge the law, ignoring the evolution of law and legal practice in the 21st century.
Lastly, this additional requirement risks slowing down the recruitment process and placing yet another hurdle before aspiring judges. The judgment shifts the burden of systemic reform onto the youngest and most vulnerable, while overlooking the deeper failures of the Bar and the legal education system. Instead of addressing the lack of structured mentorship, insufficient practical training, or outdated court infrastructure, it sends a clear message to young aspirants: “You are the problem. ” That’s not reform—it’s abdication. This judgment, while rooted in good intentions, exposes deeper cracks in our legal training and judicial infrastructure The larger question remains- What truly makes a good judge? Is it merely time spent in a courtroom, or is it the quality of learning, mentorship, and exposure to diverse legal challenges?
Can we afford to define merit through a one-size-fits-all requirement, especially in a country where opportunity is unevenly distributed? The Supreme Court’s intent—to ensure judges are not mere theoreticians but grounded in real legal practice—is valid and muchneeded. Yet the method chosen risks building new walls instead of opening wider doors. According to this verdict it is assumed that all the litigation experience is meaningful and all the non-litigation experience is irrelevant. It overlooks the talent of corporate lawyers, legal researchers, law teachers, and policy professionals who may bring valuable perspectives to the bench. A more thoughtful reform would involve a structured post-selection training program, akin to the UPSC model.
After clearing the civil judge exam, selected candidates could undergo a comprehensive program combining courtroom internships, mentorship by sitting judges, modules on ethics, legal reasoning, and public service values, the model could also include probationary posting of the newly appointed judges. This ensures experiential learning without prematurely disqualifying capable minds. Additionally, bar councils and law universities must step up to provide certified practical training, fair internships, and equitable access to senior mentors, especially for women and rural students. Reform should empower, not exclude. At its best, this judgment can become a turning point—but only if it leads to a more inclusive, transparent, and modern judiciary, not one that confuses delay with diligence or exclusion with excellence.