On 20th May 2025, the three judge bench of Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India, introduced three-year experience in litigation as a minimum eligibility criterion for appearance in Judiciary exams. While intended to strengthen lower judiciary, the sudden imposition of rule led to anxiety and feeling of hopelessness among a large number of aspirants who had been preparing for years. While hearing the review petition, Chief Justice Surya Kant himself remarked that the rule should have been introduced in a phased manner.
Now almost a year after the introduction of the three-year rule, when the Judgment is being reviewed by the Supreme Court the pertinent question is – Whether the three- year experience requirement is in itself unjust to aspirants. Following oral remark of CJI Surya Kant made during review shows a key concern of the aspirants –
“Students are not going to wait for 3 years to waste their time. They are the children who have competed through written exam. A competitive test, a test which is now more rigorous than the NEET or than the Medical and they have got admission as per their merit. Parents have spent a lot of money how they are not in a position to wait. That is the crisis we are facing. How to balance both plus women also”
While concerns regarding minimum years of practice, availability of infrastructure and provision for equitable access to women and persons with disabilities need to be addressed, the worry that students can’t be expected to “wait” is somewhat misplaced when seen in the context of a dysfunctional Judiciary entrance exam system in India and the broader employment crisis affecting law graduates.
The Dysfunctional Judicial Services Entrance Exam System
- Absence of fixed timeline and the psychological struggle
The entrance exams for lower Judiciary are not conducted in a regular manner by most of the states. For example, the notifications for last two cycles of Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Examination were released in 2022 and 2018 respectively. Since 2022 no new vacancy has been announced for UP Judicial Services. Similarly 32nd Bihar Judiciary was notified in the year 2023 and 33rd Bihar Judiciary notification was published on 23rd February 2026. These are not isolated cases. Several states judiciary entrance exams are conducted after a gap of multiple years.
The Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v Uttar Pradesh Public Commission noted that non-filling of vacancies for long time causes creeping frustration among aspirants and directed all the High Courts and State Governments to provide schedules for the Judicial Services exams. The Court also noted that the manner of provision of timelines and dates in medical college admissions or other government services exams can be emulated. Unfortunately, the Judgment has not been followed and irregularity in conduct of exams has become the rule instead of exception.
- Delayed Exam Results
Even if the aspirants are fortunate enough to get to appear for their target state judiciary exam in the same year of their preparation, their struggle doesn’t end as the results of the three stages of exam- preliminary, mains and interview are often unreasonably delayed. A few recent examples:
- Delhi Judicial Service Entrance Exam 2024 :Mains results were declared 8 months after the exam. Reason for delay was not published and exam bodies are not obligated to provide one.
- Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Entrance Exam 2023: Preliminary examination was conducted on 14th January 2024 but the final results were came only on 12th November 2025, mainly because High Court stayed the exam process and ordered recalculation of marks after MP Judicial Services Rules 1994 were amended requiring 3-year experience or 70% minimum marks for eligibility.
- Jharkhand Judicial Services Exam 2023: Jharkhand Judiciary Entrance Exam was last notified in August 2023 after almost a five-year gap from the previous 2018 notification and the result of preliminary exam has still not been announced mainly due to litigation regarding incorrect answer key. The High Court found 3 answers clearly incorrect and observed in the 29th paragraph of the judgment that:
“we are of the opinion that no reasonable body of men well-versed in the subjects of English and Law can regard them as correct.”
Incorrect answer keys lead to avoidable litigation, delay in exams and mental strain and Jharkhand isn’t an isolated case. In Chhattisgarh Judicial Services Exam 2024, 6 questions out of 100 were deleted in the revised answer key and in Delhi Judicial Services Exam 2023, 10 questions out of 200 questions were revised.
The Judiciary Exam Trap
The Judicial services entrance exams offer very few number of vacancies and are riddled with uncertainties yet the number of applicants continue to rise every year. In UP Judicial Services Exam 2018 around 60000 aspirants appeared for 610 seats and in 2022 the number of aspirants increased to more than 80,000 for merely 303 vacancies. Similarly, in Bihar vacancies declined from 221 in 31st Bihar Judicial Services Exam to 155 in 32nd Bihar Judicial Services Examination, but the number of applicants increased from 15000 to 17000.
One of the reason for the increased popularity of the exam and also the strong opposition against the three- year experience rule is the growing unemployment among law graduates coupled with the misconception that preparation for exam will provide them early stability in career. Approximately 1 Lakh law students complete graduate every year and still only 400-600 of them (mostly from top 25-30 law schools out of a total 1700 law schools) are able to find jobs in top law firms. The 2020 Vidhi Centre for legal policy survey report showed that a significant number of new lawyers admitted to per month income merely of Rs 2000 to Rs 5000.
But the answer to this problem isn’t to dedicate crucial years after graduation solely to theoretical learning and get trapped in uncertain exam cycles. Aspirants tend to extend their preparation, thinking that a new exam might be around the corner, or believing that since they have cleared the preliminary examination they ought to wait for further stages which may happen soon. Reality is far removed from this mirage.
Experience as a tool of empowerment
The primary objective for introducing minimum experience criterion was to strengthen lower judiciary as it seeks to ensure relatively more experienced and matured individuals as judicial officers. But when seen in the context of arbitrariness with which the Judicial Services Entrance exams are conducted and minimal number of total vacancies, the criterion turns from being a nemesis to aspirants into a tool of empowerment- protecting them from risking their careers in long term.
This unintended yet protective function of the experience criterion becomes more important considering the nature of the exams. Judicial Services Entrance exams for majority of the states emphasise mostly on rote learning and follow a fixed pattern which largely ignores evaluation of critical thinking, practical knowledge and application of law. For example, in the Chhattisgarh Judicial Services Entrance examination conducted in September 2025, 39 out of 100 questions in preliminary exam were directly asked from the index of bare acts. Question 3 of set B serves as illustration-
“Q3. Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 deals with-
(A) Refund of fee on application for review of judgement
(B) Refund where court reverses or modifies its former decision on the ground of mistake
(C) Fees paid on memorandum of appeal
(D) None of the above”
Solving such questions requires multiple revisions and hours of memorization. Neither practical experience, nor research and depth of knowledge can help one in building the competitive edge for such kind of exams. Thus, it will be incorrect to argue that the introduction of three- year rule will bar real talent from appearing in the Judicial Service entrance examination.
On the contrary, it can be said that without any experience criterion, aspirants might be forced to think that they must dedicate one or more years exclusively to memorization of bare acts and theoretical learning in order to secure selection. Considering the nature of examination these apprehensions can’t be dismissed as unfounded. Justice Chandran’s oral remark during the hearing of review petition shows how coaching centres have gained prominence:
“Now the source is the coaching centers. I don’t mind saying that in the open court. That is the entire problem”.
Coaching centres and educators may brand the experience criterion as a great injustice, but in reality it works as a safeguard to protect aspirants from the anxiety and helplessness which may arise when years of preparation lead to the point where exam appears as an all or nothing situation.
Instead, it would be better to build a safety net in form of actual practice rather than relying on three-year pre service training which leaves you back at square one if you are deemed as unfit. Upskilling before attempting the exam may be the only reasonable way to ensure that your dream doesn’t turn into a nightmare.
-Mahim Dubey
Advocate, Madhya Pradesh High Court; B.A. LL.B., National Law University, Delhi
