Three-Year Travesty: The Troubling Mandate for New Judges

This paper is a critical critique of the directive issued by the Supreme Court on May 20, 2025, in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, reinstating a three-year experience in advocacy as a prerequisite to entry-level judicial positions (Civil Judge Junior Division) claiming that the policy has no empirical foundation and creates a high burden of exclusionary requirements. It has also been disproportionately harmful to women aspirants (who constitute now approximately 60 of most state judiciaries) by imposing on them a critical three-year gap in their prime years of marriage and childbearing, magnified by social pressures and low early-practice salary; new law graduates who have groomed themselves are subjected to sudden career delay and talent loss; persons with disabilities have an increased disadvantage due to chambers reluctance and lack of mentorship; and economically disadvantaged/first-generation candidates are affected by financial instability in junior Without any evidence that three years of Bar experience would have any impact on better performance as a judge, particularly when there is already structured training in place, the rule would be indirectly discriminatory, reduce the talent pool, prevent gender parity and inclusiveness, and needs to be replaced with more evidence-based approaches such as greater pre-appointment training or alternative routes to eligibility to make the subordinate judiciary competent, diverse, and sustainable.