Abstract
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India reinstated the mandatory requirement of three years of advocacy practice for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division). This marked a significant shift in India’s judicial recruitment policy after more than two decades during which fresh law graduates could directly appear for judicial service examinations. The decision has generated widespread discussion among law students, young advocates, judges, and legal scholars. While supporters argue that practical courtroom experience improves judicial competence, critics believe that the rule may create financial and social barriers for aspiring judges. This Student Explainer examines the constitutional framework governing subordinate judicial appointments, the evolution of judicial recruitment, the reasons behind the Supreme Court’s decision, and its likely impact on the future of judicial services in India. It also suggests reforms to ensure that the objective of improving judicial quality is achieved without compromising fairness and equal opportunity.
Keywords: Judicial Service, Judicial Appointments, Advocacy Practice, Subordinate Judiciary, Legal Education