A Question That Refuses to Settle

The path to becoming a judge in India has always balanced academic merit and practical wisdom. Recently, the Supreme Court sought inputs from all High Courts and leading National Law Universities on a crucial issue whether aspiring judges should first spend at least three years practicing law before appearing for judicial services exams.

This step signals that the court is open to reexamining existing norms rather than imposing a one size fits all solution. It also reflects awareness that legal education and courtroom realities have changed significantly over the years.

Why the Practice Requirement Matters

Supporters of the three year practice rule argue that judges deal with real human conflicts, not just legal theory. Courtroom exposure, they say, builds maturity, empathy, and procedural understanding that cannot be fully learned in classrooms. Advocates believe that even a few years at the Bar helps future judges appreciate the challenges faced by lawyers and litigants alike.

They also point out that many judicial decisions involve discretion and practical judgment, skills often sharpened through hands on legal work.

Concerns Raised by Young Law Graduates

On the other hand, critics of the mandatory practice norm feel it may discourage talented students. Many law graduates prepare for judicial services immediately after graduation when academic concepts are fresh. A compulsory waiting period could interrupt momentum and add financial pressure, especially for those without family support in the legal profession.

National Law Universities, in particular, have seen students who are academically strong and motivated to serve as judges at an early stage. For them, delaying entry might seem like an unnecessary hurdle.

Role of High Courts and NLUs

By seeking suggestions from High Courts and NLUs, the Supreme Court has widened the conversation. High Courts bring institutional experience of managing subordinate judiciary, while NLUs represent evolving legal education and student aspirations. Their responses may help the court understand regional needs and practical consequences of any policy change.

What Lies Ahead

The consultation process does not automatically mean a new rule will be enforced. Instead, it shows judicial caution and inclusiveness. Whether the final outcome supports mandatory practice or allows flexibility, the decision will shape the future profile of India’s judges.

At its core, the debate asks a simple but profound question should a judge first learn the law by arguing cases or can strong education alone prepare one for the bench. The answer may redefine judicial recruitment for years to come.