Supreme Court Examines the 3‑Year Practice Requirement for Judicial Service Entry The Supreme Court is hearing review petitions against its earlier judgment that made a 3‑year practice rule mandatory for aspiring judges. The matter has acquired fresh urgency after the CJI Surya Kant highlighted its disproportionate impact on women candidates. Key Developments (Live Updates) 13 March 2026, 3:28 PM IST – Advocate Gonsalves argued that post‑joining training of judicial officers is a better alternative to a rigid practice period. The CJI responded that without the three‑year bar experience, the Court cannot be sure of a candidate’s competence. 13 March 2026, 3:19 PM IST – Advocate Anand requested the Court to keep the rule in abeyance, deeming it a more sensible interim solution. The CJI noted the suggestions of the parties and the amicus , and promised a further hearing next week. Important Facts Date of hearing: 13 March 2026. Bench composition: CJI Surya Kant , Justice August George Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran. Stakeholder positions: Several High Courts support retaining the rule. Other High Courts advocate relaxation for specially abled candidates . Law colleges propose expanding the definition of “practice at the Bar” to include alternative legal experience such as legal aid, research, or internships. UPSC Relevance The issue touches upon multiple UPSC syllabus points: GS 2 – Polity: Judicial appointments, the role of the Supreme Court , and the functioning of High Courts . GS 1 – Society: Gender equity concerns raised by the CJI and the inclusion of specially abled candidates . GS 4 – Ethics: Balancing merit‑based selection with affirmative action and ensuring fair access to the judiciary. Way Forward Possible outcomes of the pending review include: Upholding the 3‑year practice rule with minor modifications. Introducing a flexible framework that recognises alternative legal experience, thereby addressing concerns of law colleges and widening the talent pool. Granting specific relaxations for specially abled candidates and possibly for women, aligning with constitutional guarantees of equality. Mandating a structured post‑appointment training programme for all newly inducted judicial officers, as suggested by the counsel Gonsalves. For UPSC aspirants, tracking this case offers insight into how judicial reforms are debated at the highest level, the interplay between statutory norms and constitutional values, and the evolving approach to inclusivity in public service recruitment.