The Supreme Court expressed reservations on Thursday about the mandatory three‑year practice requirement for entry‑level posts in the judicial service . The concern centred on how the rule disproportionately affects women candidates. Key Developments A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and A G Masih, heard review petitions challenging last year’s judgment that reinstated the three‑year practice condition. The CJI highlighted that nearly 60% of judicial officers are women , and the rule creates a "vacuum" of three years that may deter or disqualify them. Women aspirants fear societal pressures—marriage and family responsibilities—that could prevent them from completing the required practice period. The Court sought responses from the Registrar Generals of the high courts on the petitions. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan previously warned that the rule’s impact on women must be closely monitored. Important Facts In May 2023, the Supreme Court restored the requirement that candidates must have a minimum of three years of practice as an advocate to be eligible for entry‑level judicial posts. This rule had been relaxed in 2002, and the Court held that courtroom experience ensures competence and maturity at the trial level. The CJI warned that the current recruitment cycle lacks fresh law graduates; the only pool consists of those who previously failed attempts or are late entrants, potentially compromising the merit of the service. UPSC Relevance Understanding this debate is crucial for GS Paper II (Polity) as it touches upon: Judicial independence and the criteria for appointment to the judiciary. Gender equity in public services and the impact of socio‑cultural norms on women’s career progression. The role of the review petition as a tool for constitutional scrutiny. For GS Paper III (Ethics), the issue raises questions about fairness, equal opportunity, and the balance between professional competence and social inclusion. Way Forward Potential policy adjustments could include: Introducing a flexible practice period or alternative competency assessments for women who face marital or familial constraints. Creating a dedicated recruitment window for fresh law graduates to ensure a steady inflow of talent. Monitoring the gender‑wise impact of the rule through periodic reports from the high courts and the Supreme Court. Such measures would aim to preserve the intended merit‑based selection while mitigating unintended gender bias, thereby strengthening the overall quality and inclusiveness of the Indian judiciary.