Minimum 3 Years, But Not at Bar: How SC Changed Rules to Become a Judge The Supreme Court on Friday (August 21) upheld its 2025 decision that future judges must have prior professional exposure before entering the subordinate judiciary but revised how that requirement would be fulfilled. By a 2:1 majority, the court retained the core principle that law graduates should gain familiarity with the functioning of courts but replaced the mandatory three-year practice at the Bar with a combination of judicial academic training and supervised clerkship. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice A G Masih formed the majority, emphasizing that the judicial service must remain attractive to capable young lawyers while ensuring maturity and practical experience. The majority opinion warned that overly strict entry requirements could deter the very candidates the rule aims to attract. It argued that a judicial service demanding adequate maturity and exposure must also remain appealing to the most capable legal minds. The court acknowledged that the path to establishing oneself at the Bar varies for individuals, noting challenges such as social and familial constraints for women and accessibility issues for persons with disabilities. However, it stopped short of creating separate eligibility standards for these groups. Justice K Vinod Chandran dissented, arguing that the original three-year Bar practice requirement should remain unchanged. He contended that law graduates steeped in academics should first gain a “feel of the affairs of man and the travails of a litigant before deciding their destinies.#supreme_court #chief_justice_of_india #justice_k_vinod_chandran #justice_ag_masih #shetty_commission
