Ritambhara R.
Friday, 27 February 2026
In a pivotal move, the Supreme Court of India has scrutinized the mandatory three-year practice requirement for candidates entering the judicial service. This examination carries significant implications for gender representation, particularly affecting women lawyers seeking entry-level judicial positions.
On February 26, 2026, a bench consisting of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai raised concerns about whether this stringent criterion might inadvertently disadvantage women. Justice Rao emphasized, "We must consider the broader consequences of imposing a mandatory practice requirement. Women are often at a disadvantage in accumulating such experience due to various societal factors."
Originally, the three-year practice rule aimed to ensure candidates possess sufficient courtroom experience before assuming judgeships. However, the Court acknowledged that this requirement might disproportionately impact women, who frequently encounter barriers in their legal career progression.
Legal experts and gender equality advocates have welcomed the Court's scrutiny. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising commented, "This recognition by the Supreme Court is a crucial step toward dismantling systemic barriers that hinder women's entry into the judiciary."
As the Court continues its deliberations, the implications are profound. Amending or striking down the rule could pave the way for a more inclusive judicial system, encouraging greater participation from women at all levels. The bench has reserved judgment, with a final decision anticipated in the coming weeks.
Legal practitioners and aspiring candidates should remain attentive, as this ruling could reshape judicial appointment practices across India. The outcome may significantly influence future recruitment policies, impacting an estimated 50,000 legal practitioners nationwide.
What You Need to Know
Supreme Court questions the three-year practice rule for judicial service, citing potential disadvantage to women lawyers.
Affects aspiring judges, particularly women, and legal practitioners nationwide, influencing judicial recruitment policies.
Scrutiny highlights systemic barriers hindering women's judicial entry, potentially reshaping appointment practices and promoting inclusivity.
Monitor the Supreme Court's final decision; prepare for potential revisions in judicial recruitment criteria and qualification standards.
The Supreme Court questions the 3-year practice rule, highlighting its impact on women in the judiciary.
Join 50,000+ legal professionals
Sign in to join the conversation
Loading comments...
Supreme Court examines the 3-year practice rule, focusing on its impact on women in judicial service.
RBI's draft amendments aim to streamline NBFC operations, enhancing compliance and growth.
SEBI's new rules redefine mutual fund categories, requiring alignment within six months. Discover the major changes.
SEBI plans to simplify reporting for stock brokers, reducing compliance burdens and enhancing market efficiency.
