India’s judiciary is deeply confused Gender inequality and underrepresentation. Since its inception, the Supreme Court has only 11 female judges. At the Supreme Court level, women make up just 14.1 percent of judgesand in the lower judiciary they only make up 38.3 percent of the selected candidates.
The problem with the three-year practice requirement is not only that it is a barrier, but also that it perpetuates an isolated vision of the “ideal” judicial candidate: a recent college graduate who can devote the immediate years following graduation to his or her profession and master it free from significant external constraints. In India, this vision is highly gendered.
This is relevant because the Collegium of the Supreme Court, when recommending lower court judges for appointment to the apex court, often makes a statement: Lack of “suitable” female candidates. And the recent requirement to practice law for at least three years before entering the lower civil courts could make this situation even worse.
The problem with the three-year practice requirement is not only that it is a barrier, but also that it perpetuates an isolated vision of the “ideal” judicial candidate: a recent college graduate who can devote the immediate years following graduation to his or her profession and master it free from significant external constraints. In India, this vision is highly gendered.
The weight of gendered patriarchal expectations
At first glance, the regulation seems sensible. Practical experience can strengthen judicial competence and understanding of the court, even if no empirical evidence was cited in the judgment to support this claim. But a closer look from a constitutional perspective reveals a significant error: formal equality is interpreted as material equality, thereby undermining the fundamental principle underlying positive action.
By linking three years of legal practice with admission to the bench, the court assumes that all candidates have a level playing field. This ignores the gender, social and economic barriers that shape access to the legal profession.
By linking three years of legal practice with admission to the bench, the court assumes that all candidates have a level playing field. This ignores the gender, social and economic barriers that shape access to the legal profession. The result is an admissions criterion that threatens to undermine the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by disproportionately discriminating against women, queer people, first-generation lawyers and other marginalized groups.
A deeper examination, taking into account the intersecting aspects of gender, sexuality, caste and class, shows the burden of this requirement. The irony is hard to ignore. The judiciary has repeatedly recognized that supposedly neutral rules can lead to unfair outcomes and has developed extensive case law on indirect discrimination, substantive equality and affirmative action. But by mandating three years of practice, it appears to overlook the structural privilege inherent in the ability to survive the precarious early years of litigation.
Anecdotally, the years immediately following law school often coincide with a time when many women face pressing societal expectations related to marriage, moving, caregiving, and family responsibilities. While their male counterparts are often encouraged to focus on building their careers, women often bear the burden of gendered patriarchal expectations.
Anecdotally, the years immediately following law school often coincide with a time when many women face pressing societal expectations related to marriage, moving, caregiving, and family responsibilities. While their male counterparts are often encouraged to focus on building their careers, women often bear the burden of gendered patriarchal expectations. The gendered nature of this burden to consider family priorities in their career decisions is clear from the regular labor force surveys, which show that domestic responsibilities still remain the most common reason For female graduates of all ages it is important to stay out of the workforce (59 percent), while for men it is either about health or education.
The unequal gender distribution of responsibilities and decision-making powers within the patriarchal family unit can limit women’s autonomy in career choices and make sustainable legal practice difficult. Bar association data suggests that only women are represented 15 percent of registered lawyers. By making entry into the judiciary dependent on three years of continuous service at precisely this stage of life, the regulation disproportionately disadvantages women and risks excluding talented candidates.
Pushing the marginalized even further to the sidelines
The exclusionary effect of the regulation extends beyond women. Apart from Judge Joyita Mondala transgender judge in West Bengal, there are no openly queer judges in the Indian judiciary. The legal profession remains characterized by systemic hierarchiesresulting in social stigma, exclusion and unequal access to justice for members of the queer community. For many LGBTQIA+ lawyers, building and maintaining a legal career requires overcoming obstacles that their heterosexual and cisgender colleagues are less likely to face. For example, queer people cannot always rely on family support, depriving them of the financial, social, and emotional safety nets that many others take for granted.
Viewed from this perspective, the three-year practice requirement raises a larger question: whose professional history is considered the norm by the judiciary and, more importantly, who is it ignoring?
In addition, the regulation also puts a disproportionate burden on first-generation lawyers and those from economically and socially marginalized backgrounds. For many of these candidates, becoming a judge serves not only as a career choice, but also as an opportunity to achieve economic security, social mobility, and public authority for themselves and their families. By delaying eligibility, the scheme effectively obliges them to endure the early years of litigation, which are often characterized by… long working hours. low pay and low job security. This risks turning judicial access from a socioeconomic gateway into a privilege reserved only for those who can afford to wait.
Viewed from this perspective, the three-year practice requirement raises a larger question: whose professional history is considered the norm by the judiciary and, more importantly, who is it ignoring? Those who experience exclusion because of their gender, sexuality or other forms of marginalization must overcome additional hurdles before they can even gain eligibility; The result is not only a smaller pool of candidates, but also a limited understanding of who can even be part of that pool.
A judiciary that remains predominantly male, heterosexual and socially privileged runs the risk of enabling and even reproducing systems of discrimination and exclusion. This is particularly concerning because representation within the judiciary is not just symbolic: judges bring lived experiences, perspectives and sensibilities that shape the interpretation of the law.
The importance of a dynamic judiciary is illustrated by this very mandate carried out by a bench of male judges. A judiciary that remains predominantly male, heterosexual and socially privileged runs the risk of enabling and even reproducing systems of discrimination and exclusion. This is particularly concerning because representation within the judiciary is not just symbolic: judges bring lived experiences, perspectives and sensibilities that shape the interpretation of the law. If diversity on the bench is a constitutional value worth pursuing, institutional design must not only reflect competence but also ensure representation.
In our current political environment, the judiciary must remain a source of hope. The fight for real representation must move beyond reservations within the judiciary and towards structural reforms that promote the principles of equality, justice and fairness. The judiciary must rethink the three-year rule and develop relevant alternatives to create a more diverse, progressive, inclusive and compassionate institution.
Vasudha is a law graduate and researcher with a keen interest in gender equality, climate policy and legal reform. Beyond her research, she is an aspiring writer with a love of reading, cooking and the classical dance form Kathak.
