Several law universities and institutions have asked the Supreme Court to broaden the meaning of “practice at the Bar” while considering whether persons with disabilities should receive exemption from the mandatory three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service posts.
Amicus curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar placed these suggestions before the Court through a compilation. A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice A.G. Masih will hear today the review petitions against last year’s judgment that restored the three-year practice condition.
Broader Reading of the 3-Year Practice Rule
Some institutions urged the Court to treat other forms of legal work as equivalent to practice at the Bar.
Balaji Law College suggested that the Court should recognise judicial clerkships, structured litigation internships, and research positions as valid legal exposure for meeting the practice requirement.
Hidayatullah National Law University proposed relaxation of the rule for specially-abled candidates who have equivalent experience in legal research, teaching in law universities, or assisted practice under structured mentorship instead of three years’ practice at the Bar.
Law College, Jalna also proposed a wider meaning for “active practice.” It suggested that clerkships and recognised legal research work should count toward the requirement. It further called for reasonable accommodation for PwD candidates through a relaxed practice timeline or credit for digital legal work.
Alternatives to the 3-Year Practice Rule
Law College, Jalna also suggested replacing the entry barrier with a one-year post-selection “Judicial Residency.” According to the institution, such a model would help fresh graduates gain maturity without losing their most productive years.
It added, “Law colleges should be encouraged to integrate trial court procedures into their curriculum, allowing the final year of study to count towards professional experience.”
Some universities also asked the Court to shift focus from pre-entry eligibility to post-selection training.
Chanakya National Law University opposed the three-year practice rule. It proposed extending the training period for Civil Judges to two years. The proposal included attachments with district judges and senior advocates, followed by a fresh personality assessment.
The university stated, “We also suggest that at the end of two years another round of personality test may be conducted by a committee of High Court Judges nominated by the Chief Justice of concerned High Courts to assess the skills in advocacy and court etiquettes. Those who do not meet the desired threshold, their probation may be extended for one more year”.
Post-Selection Training Instead of Practice Rule
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law suggested supervised probation under a sitting judge. Under this model, newly recruited officers would not pass independent orders until authorities assess their competence through performance-based evaluation.
The university further said, “Strengthening Judicial Academies and post-selection training mechanisms may serve the objective of judicial excellence more effectively than increasing pre-entry barriers. The enhanced modules focusing on practical adjudication skills, evidence evaluation, and reasoned order writing may ensure higher standards without excluding candidates at the threshold”.
Institutional Support for PwD Candidates Under Practice Rule
Some institutions focused on the need for structural support to help persons with disabilities gain practical legal experience.
The Centre for Rights of Persons with Disabilities at V.M. Salgaocar College of Law suggested that authorities create law clerk posts in the subordinate judiciary. It also proposed engagement with legal services authorities on stipend so that candidates can gain exposure to court procedures. In addition, it recommended digitisation of court processes and better accessibility in court infrastructure.
Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari suggested that the Court should direct High Courts to establish facilitative mechanisms for advocates with disabilities. These measures could include structured mentorship programmes, fair empanelment practices, and technological support within court registries. According to her, such steps would help advocates with disabilities complete the mandated experience requirement.
Balaji Law College also proposed a competency-based assessment model. It suggested evaluating candidates on judgment writing, procedural application, and case management skills instead of insisting on a fixed duration of practice.
Safeguards for the 3-Year Practice Rule
Some institutions supported continuation of the three-year rule but asked for economic and structural safeguards.
Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College recommended a formal paid apprenticeship or stipend system along with structured mentorship certification.
KLE College of Law highlighted the financial instability of early litigation practice. It said this especially affects women and economically weaker aspirants.
One Institution Seeks Stronger Requirement
In contrast, K. Govindrao Adik Law College suggested that the minimum practice requirement should increase from three years to five years.
Case Details
The matter is W.P.(C) No. 001110/2025 and connected cases.
The case title is Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases.
Also Read: Arbitral Tribunal Pre-Award Interest: Supreme Court
