Introduction
The eligibility criteria for entry into the judicial services in India has long been a subject of debate, particularly the requirement of three years’ minimum practice as an advocate. This debate has now acquired a significant constitutional and rights-based dimension with the Supreme Court of India examining whether Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) should be exempted from the 3-year practice rule for judicial service examinations.
In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court sought suggestions from all High Courts and law universities, including National Law Universities (NLUs), on whether PwD candidates should be granted relaxation from this requirement. The issue raises complex questions concerning equality, reasonable accommodation, access to justice, and fairness in judicial recruitment.
Background: The 3-Year Practice Rule in Judicial Services
In May 2025, a Constitution Bench-equivalent strength bench of the Supreme Court restored the condition that a candidate must have a minimum of three years of practice as an advocate to be eligible for entry-level judicial posts such as Civil Judge (Junior Division). This decision marked a return to an earlier regime, reversing a phase when fresh law graduates were permitted to appear for judicial service examinations.
The Court reasoned that prior courtroom exposure enhances judicial competence, sensitivity, and practical understanding of legal procedures. However, this rule has since faced criticism, particularly from young law graduates, first-generation lawyers, and candidates from marginalised backgrounds, including persons with disabilities.
The Present Case: PwD Exemption From Practice Requirement
The issue arose in a writ petition filed by Bhumika Trust v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 001110/2025), seeking exemption for PwD candidates from the mandatory three-year practice requirement.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter and initiated a broader consultation process before taking a final view.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Uniform Eligibility
At the outset, the CJI made a significant observation that sets the tone of the judicial debate:
“There cannot be a different set of rules for the specially abled candidates, in terms of basic eligibility.”
The Court emphasised that basic eligibility criteria must remain uniform for all candidates to preserve fairness and institutional integrity. Granting a blanket exemption to PwDs, the Court cautioned, may create perceptions of unfair advantage over other aspirants.
The bench further observed that exempting one category entirely from a core eligibility requirement could be unfair to others, especially when judicial service recruitment affects public trust in the judiciary.
Representation of PwDs and Role of High Courts
While expressing reservations about creating a separate eligibility standard, the CJI clarified that High Courts have a constitutional responsibility to ensure adequate representation of PwD candidates in judicial services.
He noted that High Courts, as recruiting authorities under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, must proactively adopt inclusive practices, such as:
- Providing reasonable accommodation during examinations
- Ensuring accessible examination infrastructure
- Sensitising selection committees
- Addressing systemic barriers faced by PwD advocates
However, the Court distinguished representation and accommodation from relaxation of core eligibility norms.
Practical Difficulties Faced by PwD Lawyers
Counsel for the petitioners highlighted a crucial ground reality: PwD advocates often face discrimination at the Bar. Many senior advocates and law firms are reluctant to hire lawyers with disabilities, limiting their ability to accumulate three years of meaningful practice.
This argument brings into focus the structural barriers that PwD candidates face, which may render the 3-year practice requirement disproportionately burdensome for them. The petitioners contended that insisting on practice experience without addressing these barriers results in indirect discrimination.
Student Discontent and the Court’s Consultative Approach
The CJI acknowledged widespread dissatisfaction among law students regarding the reinstated practice rule. Referring to his interactions with students, he remarked that many young aspirants feel “disappointed and demoralised”.
Importantly, the bench stated that it did not want the issue to be resolved solely based on judicial opinion. Instead, it opted for a participatory and consultative approach, recognising that judicial recruitment impacts multiple stakeholders.
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court formally directed:
- All High Courts to submit their views and suggestions on the issue
- All law universities, including NLUs and other institutions, to provide feedback
- High Court Registrars to place the order before their respective Chief Justices
The Court granted four weeks for submission of suggestions before it undertakes a “holistic view” of the issue.
This move reflects judicial restraint and institutional humility, signalling that policy-oriented decisions should be informed by empirical realities and stakeholder perspectives.
Constitutional and Legal Dimensions
The issue sits at the intersection of several constitutional principles:
1. Article 14 – Equality Before Law
A blanket exemption for PwDs may raise concerns of unequal treatment, while rigid application of the rule may amount to indirect discrimination.
2. Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
The State must ensure equal access to judicial posts without creating unreasonable barriers.
3. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The Act mandates reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination, but does not automatically require exemption from essential eligibility conditions.
4. Judicial Independence and Competence
Any relaxation must balance inclusivity with the need for capable and experienced judges.
The Way Forward
Rather than a complete exemption, possible middle-ground solutions may include:
- Reduced practice requirement for PwDs
- Recognition of alternative legal experience
- Structured judicial training programs post-selection
- Court-monitored mentorship or apprenticeship models
The Supreme Court’s decision to seek institutional feedback indicates openness to nuanced solutions rather than rigid binaries.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s consideration of exempting PwD candidates from the 3-year practice rule marks a significant moment in the evolution of inclusive judicial recruitment in India. By seeking inputs from High Courts and law universities, the Court has acknowledged both the legitimate concerns of PwD aspirants and the need to maintain fairness and judicial standards.
The final decision, expected after the consultative process, will have far-reaching implications not only for judicial services but also for how constitutional equality is understood in professional eligibility frameworks.
Also Read
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
