The 3-Year Practice Rule: A Nod to Experience or Exclusion of Women Judges?

Earlier this year, as a judicial decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India nodded to the mandatory requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice for appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in India, on the account of the need for practical courtroom experience which is a prerequisite of the said profession. The mandatory requirement of a minimum of three years of practice was first introduced in 1993 and is now reinstated after the Apex Court scrapped it following the recommendations of the Shetty Commission (2002). This landmark decision gave way to debates and discussions surrounding the possible ‘gender penalty’ that the new rule could impose on the already under-represented and gender-biased Indian judiciary. In what follows, the writer shall endeavour to examine the new 3-year practice rule via a gender justice lens and suggest a way forward to balance gender justice with the need for practical knowledge in the modern legal setting.

The institutional form of the lower judiciary in India includes the District & Sessions Courts at the apex, followed by Civil Judge (Senior/Junior Division) courts and Magistrate courts. In other words, all courts except the Supreme Court and the High Courts of the respective states, form the lower judiciary - also known as the subordinate judiciary. These courts collectively constitute the primary interface between citizens and the justice system and impart justice at the grassroots level.

Delivering his address at the ‘National Conference of the District Judiciary 2024’, former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud described the district judiciary as the ‘backbone of the judicial system’, signalling its centrality to the administration of justice at the local level.

According to the Supreme Court of India’s State of the Judiciary Report (2023), women constitute 36.3% of the district judiciary. Whereas, the share of women judges in the High Courts is only 14.27%. Recent statistics reflect a positive upward trend in women’s representation in the lower judiciary; however, the imposition of this three-year practice requirement injects a new uncertainty into this progress, which might soon have reflected in women’s representation in the higher judiciary as well.

While appearing prima facie non-biased and a practical requirement, the new rule has unfair implications for the female gender. In a country that talks about uplifting the condition and representation of women every now and then, it is disappointing to witness the highest judicial office passing such an order without considering the current unequal status of women, especially in the field of law, and thus allowing indirect discrimination to happen.

Earlier, the approximate age of appearing for the exam used to be around 23-24 years, where the aspirants were fresh law school graduates; however, the introduction of this new three-year rule would push the new eligibility age of even the smaller posts of the lower judiciary to 26-27 years, an age when most women in India cannot afford demanding careers. This contrasts sharply with UPSC norms, where even 21-year-old graduates are eligible to assume district administration roles.

A report by the Sample Registration System (SRS) reveals that the average age of marriage of females in India is around 22.9 years. Whereas, according to various reports, the average age of marriage of men is around 28 years in India. These statistics aptly showcase the Indian mindset of marrying off the girl at an early age. The introduction of this new 3-year rule would discourage many meritorious women from preparing and appearing for the exam and ultimately from getting admitted into the field of judiciary, as they will be asked to marry and settle down as early as possible.

It is equally important to take into account that women face dramatically higher dropout rates in litigation due to hostile, male-dominated court environments, unpaid years, unsafe late working hours, and lack of mentorship from senior advocates—all of which make completing three uninterrupted years of practice far more difficult for the female gender.

The rule also punishes women for maternity, caregiving, marriage, and relocation breaks, whereas men’s careers, de facto, in most cases, remain largely uninterrupted. It disproportionately harms first-generation women lawyers who lack professional networks and financial buffers, making survival in the early years of practice far more fragile for them. By delaying entry into a stable, structured, salaried judicial career that women overwhelmingly prefer for safety and dignity, the rule makes the profession even less accessible. Ultimately, the 3-year practice requirement shrinks the pool of women willing and/or able to opt for the judiciary, deepens male dominance in the courts, and reinforces structural inequality while remaining behind the cloak of “experience” when close examination makes it look more like “exclusion”.

The decision is at odds with the Law Commission of India’s 117th Report (1986), which encouraged fresh law graduates into judicial service, but emphasised training to offset their lack of experience at the same time. Likewise, the Shetty Commission Report (2002) contended that modern legal education, especially the five-year degree’s practical training that mandates internship, made the three-year practice rule unnecessary. It proposed institutional training instead. The Apex Court cited the reason for the passage of such a mandatory rule as that fresh law graduates lack practical exposure. However, the issue of lack of experience can be aptly addressed without mandating such a long duration.

Practical reforms could include reducing compulsory practice to one year, supplemented by six-month district court apprenticeships as training for selected candidates, or adopting a competency-based eligibility model that emphasises skills rather than time served. Instead of counting years, the dexterousness of the candidate must be checked: handling case files, drafting orders, understanding procedures and courtroom dynamics. Another way could be allowing dual pathways: one, to go for a 3-year litigation practice and two, to go for a 1-year training and judicial apprenticeship. Dedicated arrangements can help preserve, and eventually strengthen, the presence of women judges in the ‘backbone of the Indian judiciary,’ balancing the demand for experience with a genuinely gender-neutral approach.

(The author is pursuing LLB at Maharashtra National Law University (NLU), Nagpur)