How Should Future Judges Be Trained?

Less than a year after restoring the three-year legal practice requirement for entry into the civil judiciary in 2025, the Supreme Court is reconsidering the rule in light of review petitions filed in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, amid concerns about its impact on access to judicial service. 

At first glance, the rule appears rational. Judges exercise authority over disputes involving liberty, property and rights, and it is reasonable to expect that those who enter the bench possess familiarity with courtroom practice. However, the debate before the court raises a deeper institutional question. The issue is not simply whether judges should have practical experience, but whether the pathway through which that experience is obtained aligns with the constitutional promise of equality of opportunity.

The structure of early litigation practice in India complicates the assumption that the legal market can serve as a neutral training ground. The first years of practice are marked by financial insecurity and dependence on informal networks. Junior advocates in major cities often earn between Rs 15,000-25,000 per month, and many receive little or no remuneration during the early stages of their careers. Participation in litigation therefore often depends on family support or access to established chambers. 

When three years of private practice is mandated as a prerequisite for judicial service, this professional reality becomes a structural barrier. Candidates without financial backing must bear the economic cost of remaining in the profession before they can attempt the judicial examination. The requirement therefore operates as a de facto wealth qualification.

This barrier has visible consequences for the composition of the judiciary. According to the India Justice Report 2025, women constitute roughly 38% of judges in the district judiciary, where recruitment occurs through competitive examinations, but their representation falls sharply to about 14.8% at the high court level. A similar pattern appears across social categories. While about 45.9% of judges in the lower judiciary come from Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class communities, they account for only 20.2% of high court appointments. Together, these disparities illustrate what scholars describe as a ‘leaky pipeline’ in the legal profession, where diversity present at the entry stage steadily diminishes before elevation to the higher judiciary.

Members of the judiciary have also recognised the importance of widening access within the legal profession. Justice Hima Kohli of the Supreme Court has observed that the increasing presence of women and first-generation lawyers represents an important step toward improving inclusivity in the legal system. Her remark reflects a widely acknowledged institutional reality. Entry into the profession has historically depended not only on talent but also on access to networks, mentorship and financial endurance. A recruitment structure that requires young lawyers to navigate this environment for several years before attempting entry into judicial service risks reinforcing these inequalities.

How should future judges be prepped?

The debate therefore turns on how future judges should be prepared. Should the judiciary rely primarily on experience at the Bar, or assume greater responsibility for training candidates within the institution itself?

Comparative experience shows that in several jurisdictions, judicial training is treated as an institutional responsibility of the state. France offers a clear illustration of this approach. Candidates for the magistrature are recruited through a competitive national examination and trained at the École nationale de la magistrature, the country’s national judicial academy. 

The programme combines classroom instruction with extensive supervised court placements and rigorous professional evaluation before trainees assume their first postings as judges or public prosecutors. 

In this system, practical expertise is developed through institutional mentorship and structured training rather than through years of private litigation practice.

India could adopt elements of the French approach to establish a structured pathway that provides meaningful courtroom training for future judges. One possible reform could involve introducing a structured judicial residency programme within the judiciary. Candidates who qualify through judicial service examinations could enter a two-year training phase in which they assist senior judges in legal research, judgment preparation and case management while observing courtroom proceedings and gradually assuming limited adjudicatory responsibilities under supervision. Such a framework would preserve practical exposure while reducing the economic barriers created by prolonged dependence on private litigation practice.

The constitutional framework places a responsibility on public institutions to widen access to opportunity. Articles 14 and 16 guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment, while Article 39A directs the state to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. A judicial recruitment structure that depends heavily on financial endurance within private practice risks undermining these commitments.

A judiciary that reflects the diversity of Indian society will command deeper legitimacy and public confidence. Achieving that outcome requires the institution to take responsibility for training its future judges rather than leaving their formation to the uncertainties of private practice. The Supreme Court’s deliberations therefore present an opportunity to rethink not only an eligibility rule but also the broader architecture through which India prepares the next generation of judges.

Jehosh Paul is a lawyer and development consultant. Views expressed are personal.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.