3 Year Practice Mandate : Law Colleges Suggest Alternatives For Special-Abled Candidates

Several law universities and institutions have suggested that the meaning of “practice at the Bar” be broadened to include alternative forms of legal experience while responding to the Supreme Court's call for suggestions on whether persons with disabilities should be exempted from the mandatory three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service posts.

Their suggestions have been placed before the Court through a compilation filed by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice AG Masih will hear today the review petitions filed against last year's judgment which restored the 3-year practice condition.

Some institutions proposed redefining what constitutes relevant legal experience. Balaji Law College suggested that equivalent exposure such as judicial clerkships, structured litigation internships or research positions could be recognised as fulfilling the practice requirement.

Hidayatullah National Law University suggested relaxing the rule for specially-abled candidates with equivalent experience such as legal research, teaching in law universities, assisted practise under structured mentorship instead of three years' practise at the Bar.

Law College, Jalna similarly proposed redefining “active practice” to include clerkships and recognised legal research work and granting reasonable accommodation to PwD candidates by way of a relaxed practice timeline or credit for digital legal work.

It further suggested that instead of an entry barrier, a post-selection "Judicial Residency" of 1 year could ensure that fresh graduates gain the necessary maturity without losing their most productive years. It added, “Law colleges should be encouraged to integrate trial court procedures into their curriculum, allowing the final year of study to count towards professional experience.”

Certain universities suggested shifting the focus from pre-entry eligibility to post-selection training. Chanakya National Law University opposed the three year practice rule and proposed increasing the training period for Civil Judges to two years, including attachments with district judges and senior advocates followed by a fresh personality assessment.

“We also suggest that at the end of two years another round of personality test may be conducted by a committee of High Court Judges nominated by the Chief Justice of concerned High Courts to assess the skills in advocacy and court etiquettes. Those who do not meet the desired threshold, their probation may be extended for one more year”, it said.

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law suggested supervised probation under a sitting judge, with newly recruited officers not authorised to pass independent orders until their competence is assessed through performance-based evaluation.

“Strengthening Judicial Academies and post-selection training mechanisms may serve the objective of judicial excellence more effectively than increasing pre-entry barriers. The enhanced modules focusing on practical adjudication skills, evidence evaluation, and reasoned order writing may ensure higher standards without excluding candidates at the threshold”, it further said.

Some institutes focused on need for institutional mechanisms to help persons with disabilities gain practical experience. The Centre for Rights of Persons with Disabilities at V.M. Salgaocar College of Law suggested creation of law clerk posts in the subordinate judiciary and engagement with legal services authorities on stipend to enable exposure to court procedures. It also recommended digitisation of court processes and accessibility measures in court infrastructure.

Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari suggested that High Courts may be directed to establish facilitative mechanisms such as structured mentorship programmes, fair empanelment practices and technological support within court registries to enable advocates with disabilities to complete the mandated experience requirement.

Balaji Law College also proposed a competency-based assessment model involving evaluation of judgment writing, procedural application and case management skills instead of strict insistence on a fixed duration of practice.

Some institutions supported continuation of the rule but suggested economic and structural safeguards. Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College recommended formalising the requirement with a paid apprenticeship or stipend system and structured mentorship certification. KLE College of Law highlighted financial instability during early litigation practice and its impact on women and economically weaker aspirants.

In contrast, one outlier submission from K Govindrao Adik Law College suggested increasing the minimum practice requirement from three to five years.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 001110 / 2025 and connected cases

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases