3-Year Rule: A Setback to Judiciary Aspirants

The Supreme Court has recently (May 2025) brought back a ‘3-year rule’ for the candidates aspiring to become Civil Judges (junior division).

• This decision means fresh law graduates can no longer apply for judicial exams right after finishing their degrees.

 

What is the current eligibility criteria for Civil Judge at Junior Division?

How will the rule work?

Must be an Indian citizen. Must possess a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree (either 3-year or 5-year integrated) from a recognized university. Must be enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of India/ relevant state Bar Council. Age limits generally range from 21 to 35 years, with variations and relaxations based on state and category (e.g., SC/ST/OBC, women, persons with disabilities).

Candidates must have at least 3 years of legal practice, certified by a senior advocate (with at least 10 years of standing) or a principal judicial officer. Time served as a ‘law clerk to judges’ may also count as part of the required experience. Aspirants need to provide a certificate verifying their legal practice, endorsed by the judiciary. The rule applies only to future recruitment cycles; ongoing or already notified exams will continue under the old rules. All new judicial entrants must undergo one year of training before presiding over court proceedings.

• Practical Experience: The Judges need real courtroom experience (in-fact should have) to truly understand legal procedures and handle cases well.
  • Practical work experience as a lawyer helps new judges make better decisions and deal with complex legal issues.
• Quality of Judgments: SC found that fresh graduates often lack the maturity and practical skills needed for judging serious matters like life and property.
• Filtering for Seriousness: Having 3 years of practice ensures only serious and dedicated candidates, who have shown commitment to law, become judges.
  • This rule is meant to improve the quality of judgments and make sure judges are ready for the job from day one.

 

• Delayed Entry and Limited Opportunities: Some of the specialized law courses designed to prepare students for direct entry into the judiciary (such as the 5 year BA LLB Honours in ‘Adjudication and Justicing’ at Maharashtra National Law University) will see diminished immediate relevance.
  • Further, the 3-year rule makes it harder for new law graduates to become judges quickly.
  • Secondly, the exams aren’t held regularly and due to this age limits can stop them from applying at a later stage.
• Barrier for Marginalized and Less Privileged: It is especially tough for students from poorer backgrounds, as not everyone can afford to work for three years in entry-level low-paying or unpaid legal jobs.
• Loss of Young Talent: The rule may push talented young graduates away from judicial careers because they have to wait longer and face uncertainty, making other jobs more appealing.
• Alternative Solutions: Some opponents suggest that instead of this strict rule, the system should focus on holding exams regularly, giving better training after selection, and raising age limits to give more people a fair chance.