Supreme Court of India judge flags impact of 3-year Bar experience rule on women judicial aspirants

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court has observed that while the decision restoring the requirement of three years’ experience at the Bar for entry-level judicial service addresses long-standing concerns in the legal fraternity, it may also pose challenges, particularly for women judicial aspirants.

Justice Bhuyan was speaking on the topic “Constitutional Morality and Role of District Judiciary” at a seminar organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy.

Highlighting the importance of prior practice, Justice Bhuyan said that many in the legal community believe that experience at the Bar is essential as it provides exposure beyond textbooks and develops maturity required for judicial work.

“Judicial work demands a certain degree of maturity and practical exposure. Experience at the Bar allows a young lawyer to understand courtroom discipline, human behaviour and the weight of judicial responsibility. In that sense, the requirement of experience may strengthen the quality of new entrants to the district judiciary,” he said.

However, Justice Bhuyan cautioned that the requirement also has a flip side. He noted that the initial years at the Bar are often financially uncertain and professionally demanding, especially for those who do not come from established legal backgrounds or who hail from mofussil and rural areas.

He further observed that the rule could have implications for women aspirants, particularly from small towns and rural regions, who may face career interruptions due to societal pressures or family expectations of marriage.

“It may impact women judicial aspirants, especially those from rural areas and small towns, who may face career breaks due to societal constraints or family pressure. Whether this will affect the significant and welcome entry of women into judicial service is something only the future will reveal,” he said.

Justice Bhuyan also noted that the Supreme Court has recently allowed open-court hearings of review petitions challenging the three-year practice mandate, indicating that the issue continues to remain under judicial scrutiny.