3-Year Practice Rule REMOVED? SC’s Landmark Decision Explained!

The legal landscape for judicial aspirants in India has seen a massive shift over the last year. The “3-year practice rule,” which was reinstated by the Supreme Court in May 2025, has become a central point of debate.

Interestingly, as of January 2026, there is fresh movement. While the rule was made mandatory last year, the Supreme Court has recently (January 15, 2026) sought fresh opinions from High Courts and National Law Universities (NLUs) to reconsider its impact, particularly for certain categories like PwD candidates.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the rule, why it was brought back, and the current status of its potential “removal” or relaxation.

Table of Contents

The 3-Year Practice Rule: A Brief History

For decades, the eligibility for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam has flipped between requiring experience and allowing fresh graduates.

1993: The Supreme Court (All India Judges Association case) originally mandated 3 years of practice.
2002: The Court relaxed this rule, allowing fresh law graduates to sit for exams immediately after their LLB, following the Shetty Commission recommendations.
May 20, 2025: In a landmark shift, the Supreme Court reinstated the 3-year mandatory practice rule, effectively barring fresh graduates from the 2025-26 recruitment cycles onwards.

Why was it brought back?

The Court observed that recruiting fresh graduates without any courtroom exposure was not a “successful experience.” The rationale was:

Practical Maturity: A judge needs to understand the “pulse” of the court, which only comes from active practice.

Sensitivity: Dealing with human problems in a courtroom requires a level of professional maturity that theoretical study doesn’t provide.

Procedural Grip: Active practice ensures a better handle on the nuances of the CrPC, CPC, and Evidence Act.

Is the Rule Being Removed? (Latest Update: January 2026)

While the rule is currently law, there is a new wave of legal challenges that could lead to its removal or modification:

1. The Plea by Bhumika Trust

On January 15, 2026, the Supreme Court heard a plea highlighting that the rule is particularly harsh on specially-abled (PwD) law graduates. The argument is that many senior lawyers are hesitant to hire PwD candidates, making it nearly impossible for them to complete the mandatory 3-year “active practice” requirement.

2. Supreme Court’s New Consultative Approach

Instead of a flat rejection, the bench (headed by CJI Surya Kant) has decided to take a holistic view. The Court has now asked for formal opinions from:

All High Courts across India.
National Law Universities (NLUs) and major law schools.

The Goal: To gather broader feedback on whether this 3-year “barrier” is doing more harm than good by excluding talented, yet disadvantaged, candidates.

Key Details of the Current Rule (As it stands today)

If you are preparing for the 2026 exams, here is what the rule currently requires:

Feature	Current Requirement
Minimum Experience	3 Years of active practice as an Advocate.
Counting Period	Calculated from the date of Provisional Enrollment with the Bar Council.
Proof of Practice	A certificate from a Principal Judicial Officer or a Senior Advocate (10+ years exp).
Clerkship	Experience as a Law Clerk to a Judge is recognized toward the 3 years.
Exemptions	Judicial Officers appointed before May 20, 2025, are exempt for inter-state transfers.

What This Means for Aspirants

If the rule is removed or relaxed in 2026, it would open the doors again for thousands of fresh law graduates. However, until the Supreme Court receives the feedback from High Courts and passes a new order, the 3-year mandate remains in force.