Ritambhara R.
Friday, 27 February 2026
The Supreme Court of India is scrutinizing the constitutionality of the three-year practice requirement for aspiring judges, a move that could significantly alter the entry criteria for judicial services.
On February 26, 2026, a five-judge Constitution Bench, including Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, reserved its judgment after hearing detailed arguments on the rule.
This case, referenced as 2026 INSC 123, challenges the mandate that candidates must have three years of bar practice before applying for entry-level judicial positions. Justice Nagarathna highlighted the bench's concerns: "While practical experience is vital, imposing rigid requirements disproportionately affects women, who may encounter systemic barriers to gaining such experience."
The legal provisions under examination include Article 233 of the Constitution, which empowers the Governor to regulate recruitment and service conditions for judicial appointments. Critics argue that the three-year rule is outdated and fails to accommodate candidates' diverse backgrounds, particularly women who may struggle to maintain continuous practice.
The bench's deliberations occur amid growing recognition of the need for reforms to enhance diversity and inclusivity within the judiciary. If the Court decides to overturn or modify the three-year requirement, it could set a precedent for future cases concerning judicial appointment qualifications, potentially influencing state regulations.
This ruling holds substantial implications for the legal profession. It could increase access for women and other underrepresented groups in the judiciary, fostering a more diverse legal environment. Legal practitioners and students should closely follow this case, as the Court's decision may trigger changes in recruitment practices across states.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its judgment in the coming weeks. The outcome may redefine entry barriers into judicial services, reflecting the ongoing evolution of India's legal framework in response to societal needs.
What You Need to Know
Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of the three-year practice rule for judicial service applicants, potentially altering entry criteria.
Aspiring judges, especially women, and state judicial recruitment bodies are directly affected by the potential rule change.
The ruling may set a precedent for future cases concerning judicial appointment qualifications, influencing state regulations under Article 233.
Legal professionals should monitor the judgment for potential changes in state judicial recruitment practices and eligibility requirements.
Supreme Court examines the 3-year practice rule, focusing on its impact on women in judicial service.
Join 50,000+ legal professionals
Sign in to join the conversation
Loading comments...
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.
The Supreme Court questions the 3-year practice rule, highlighting its impact on women in the judiciary.
SEBI plans to simplify reporting for stock brokers, reducing compliance burdens and enhancing market efficiency.
