Balancing Scales: Is the Three-year Bar Rule a Shield or a Shackle?

The Supreme Court of India’s recent ruling to reinstate a three-year practice requirement for entry into lower judiciary, has led to a heated discussion regarding its efficiency and fairness. This article brings to the fore the concern about the rationale behind the mandate and in what way it effects women, first-generation lawyers, and marginalised communities, who already face too many systemic barriers in this field. With significant underrepresentation of different groups, the article explores how this rule threatens to exacerbate the situation by excluding capable candidates by reinforcing current hierarchies. The article condemns the assumption that private practice uniformly equips candidates to become a finer judge, highlighting its uneven quality and inaccessibility. It promotes a reformed, and more robust post-selection training by State Judicial Academies to achieve judicial competence without perpetuating hierarchies. These would promote inclusivity with competence, being in consonance with the constitutional promise of equal opportunity and generating a diverse, competent judiciary which is representative of the population of India.