5 min readMar 6, 2026 07:27 PM IST
First published on: Mar 6, 2026 at 07:05 PM IST
Written by Jwalika Balaji and Mandar Prakhar
Last year, the Supreme Court, while restoring and upholding the requirement that candidates applying for district judiciary positions have at least three years of litigation experience, sparked a massive debate about its deterrent effect on young lawyers, particularly women. However, in light of the CJI Surya Kant’s remarks on February 26, the issue warrants fresh consideration. Lamenting the policy, the CJI expressed his concerns over the vacuum created by the policy, which directly impacts aspiring female lawyers, who already face social pressures like marriage and relocation. The three-year waiting period would further deter high-calibre women from even trying. This concern has to be read with CJI’s strong emphasis on women being the “potential of our merit”, noting that 60 per cent of judicial officers are women. Last year, Arjun Ram Meghwal, Minister of Law and Justice, presented surprising statistics illustrating the scale of female participation in the judiciary. The data noted only two women judges (5 per cent) working in the Supreme Court, 110 women judges (10 per cent) in High Courts, and 7,852 women judges (37 per cent) in District and subordinate courts.
Why this policy?
While this might have an inadvertent consequence, the intention of the policy to require courtroom experience to be a judge perhaps makes sense. The 2025 Supreme Court verdict echoed the concerns raised by various high courts that appointees fresh from college often lack judicial maturity, courtroom decorum, and procedural know-how. This necessitates that these judges be adept with the reality of the other side of the courtroom.
This policy is a reiteration of a precedent employed previously. The All India Judges Association case (1994) considered the recommendation given by the Shetty Commission to replace the mandatory three-year practice rule with two years of intensive judicial training. While 24 academies were brought in to train these judicial appointees, these institutions are ill-equipped. Most of the training provided under these institutions recycles law school lessons instead of cultivating practical skills required in the courtroom, such as appreciating evidence, judgment‑writing skills and reading of the socio-economic demographics of the relevant state. In short, rather than honing skills actually required for sound judicial decision-making, more focus is given on what is already taught in law schools.
How does it impact women?
While prior litigation experience is beneficial for judicial appointments, the fallout of this policy is particularly acute for women. In a country where social expectations and reality often force women to pause their careers, undergo childbirth, and take up caregiving duties, a mandatory practice requirement hampers judicial ambitions for talented young female lawyers. The CJI astutely observed that familial expectations may deprive women from completing the required years of practice, and the ones who choose to defy this patriarchal imposition might receive little support. The result would be a judiciary with shrinking female representation.
This problem is further compounded by the lack of gender-sensitive courtroom infrastructure. In Rajeeb Kalita vs Union of India (2025), former CJI Chandrachud observed the lack of private washrooms for judicial officers across courtrooms. Further, there is no protection against sexual harassment for women advocates, as held by the Bombay High Court. These issues may further discourage those women who were planning to enter the district judiciary directly.
Global perspectives
Comparative experience shows that judicial training and appointment systems matter for gender representation. In England and Wales, eligibility requires at least five years of post-qualification practice as a barrister, solicitor, or legal executive. While India’s three-year practice rule is structurally similar, women’s representation in the UK judiciary far exceeds India’s. Germany’s civil-law model follows a unified route for lawyers and judges: University exams, a two-year apprenticeship, a second exam, and a choice between practice and judgeship, followed by probation of up to five years before tenure.
From the Global South, South Africa offers a more transformative model. Its Constitution requires that judicial appointments reflect the country’s racial and gender composition. As a result, women now constitute about 52 per cent of the lower judiciary and nearly half of the higher judiciary, significantly outperforming India.
Thus, we must reconsider the litigation requirement from all angles. A policy that appears neutral but in effect causes harm to some groups is not entirely desirable or equitable. We need to be able to balance our goals of ensuring female inclusion in the judiciary with a reasonable process of appointment of district judges.
Balaji is a Research Fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Prakhar is an Associate Fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal
A policy that appears neutral but in effect causes harm to some groups is not entirely desirable or equitable (File Photo) 
Share
