Is there a three -year practice mandate to welcome judicial service?

Is this a welcome reform?

Bharat Chug: I do not believe that the three -year practice at the bar increases the legal skills of a candidate or preparations for the judicial office. Such a brief tenure is unlikely to provide any meaningful risk to the nuances and complications of legal practice. The verdict also appears inappropriate by empirical evidence and is very low to remove those systemic concerns to resolve it.

Prashant Reddy: I believe this is a step in the right direction. However, it can still be insufficient. Ideally, candidates should gain more court experience before taking judicial office. Nearly manuses between the High Courts provide empirical evidence to this effect. Except two, all 23 High Courts said that the recruitment of Youth Law Graduates in Judicial Services has achieved unsatisfactory results. In addition, in 2021, the Bar Council of India issued a scary statement stating that judges did not have practical experience in the bar, “unable to handle cases and disqualified”.

Is it more effective to focus on strengthening judicial training programs?

Prashant Reddy: Judicial academies are less-equipped to provide meaningful training to newly appointed judges. Even more importantly, it is difficult to implement real -world skills within class settings. This will require an exceptionally low faculty-to-train ratio to offer individual reactions and mentorship of these skills demand. In addition, what cannot be taught in any institutional settings is experience. There is a big difference in how a recent law graduation considers the world in its mid -30s or 40s than anyone. Over time, individual and professional experiences promote a degree of emotional maturity that is necessary to make judicial decisions. This point was exposed to the Supreme Court Committee of Uttarakhand High Court in response to the investigation of the issue.

Bharat Chugh: I believe that a deep understanding of life is necessary to become a competent judge and such an understanding cannot be cultivated only within the limits of a year’s judicial training program. However, if we hope that judges enter the system with enough life and professional experience, we should make judicial service much more attractive than this. As long as a candidate is appointed as a junior civil judge or first class magistrate, he is likely to be around 29–30 years old. Given the working condition and limited incentive, it is hardly an attractive career route, especially when they can directly qualify for District Judge cadre until the age of 33 or 35 years.

How can we ensure that practice requirement is not low only for formalities?

Bharat Chugh: As you rightly said, it becomes only a formality. The decision to assess such experiences does not hold any concrete parameters. This not only reduces the purpose of such authentication, but also presents the process as exclusion, which damages people who have access or access to professionals installed in the area. If the evaluation is to be document-based, a more structured and transparent system is required. For example, a digital diary can be installed, which requires the candidates to upload verified records, such as the order sheet and the performance of the court performance, on a safe portal. The verdict also does not provide clarity that candidates working in non-petty roles, such as public sector undertakings or in-house legal departments are to be evaluated.

Prashant Reddy: I agree with Bharat. This is a fundamentally flawed and poor imagination improvement. If the process was more democratic, with a public counseling mechanism, the stakes could indicate many practical challenges associated with applying such measures. When someone considers the realities of legal practice in India, the disconnect becomes even more clear. In their early years, most junior advocates are re -established for peripheral tasks, such as demanding adjournment, rather than being engaged in litigation. Such limited exposure is deeply problematic to consider as meaningful court room experience.

Will it prevent top talent from joining the judiciary, especially from marginalized or from poor background candidates?

Bharat Chugh: Yes. Earlier, when such a requirement was absent, the judicial service offered a meaningful route for a level playground and public service for several law graduates, especially from low-knowledge law schools. In addition, people who discover a qualification for litigation can be reluctant to give up their practice so that they can start their entry level citizen judges or magistrates in the late 20s.

It is equally important to keep in mind that continuous delays in conducting judicial service examinations and procedural laps prevent serious candidates. Without systemic reforms, even though these exams attract a large number of applicants, judiciary is best equipped to the risk losing and to strengthen the institution.

Prashant Reddy: As the qualifying age for the exam increases, the pool of the applicants is likely to shrink. In the late 20s, the candidates offer equal pay and encouragement to the candidates, as introduced to those in the first 20s, who would compulsorily reduce the appeal of the exam. Given the limited opportunities in intensive competition and litigation, laws will always be a graduate to join judicial service. However, the more pressure question is whether the examination attracts the most competent candidates. In my view, the current examination format, even in addition to an interview phase, is not successful in attracting the best talent.

The India Justice report shows that the ratio of women judges in the district judiciary increased from 30% in 2017 to 38.3% in 2025. Can the need for practice affect women unevenly?

Prashant Reddy: Definitely. For many women, lack of financial resources or family support makes it difficult to maintain three -year litigation. In contrast, a career in the judiciary provides more financial stability and social validity. He said, in most states, there is reservation for women in the district judiciary, which will help maintain its appeal as a viable career option. However, it is important to identify that the structure of the bench is internally associated with the variety of the bar. A judiciary that lacks gender representation often reflects broad systemic exclusion within the legal profession.

Bharat Chugh: In recent years, significant progress has been made in increasing gender representation within the District Judiciary. Without this additional barrier, progress may be reflected in the higher judiciary. The litigation presents several entry-level obstacles for women; Several encounter resistance from orthodox families who are more helpful in career in academics or corporate laws. In addition, increasing the appearance of women on the bench is not only a matter of representation, it also helps in promoting more sensitivity within the legal system.

Is this an example of ‘court room polyming’? If yes, should it be avoided?

Prashant Reddy: Absolutely. This is also a matter of constitutional incompatibility. Under Article 234 of the Constitution, the power to set the eligibility criteria for the members of the District Judiciary rests with the state’s Public Service Commissions and the Executive in consultation with the concerned High Courts. The Supreme Court has no right to make these powers suitable for themselves. Nevertheless, it has been doing so since the case of the Association of Earlier All India Judges in 1991.

Bharat Chugh: Before advocating the improvement of this scale, it is necessary to collect completely and reliable data. For example, is there more complaints or disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers without those who experience prior advocacy compared to those? Is the system capable of maintaining judicial authorities over time? These are complex questions that require data-driven analysis-some court, with its limited jurisdiction and time-bound hearing, is not effectively equipped to carry out.

To listen to the conversation In The Hindu Parle Podcast