THREE MONTHS INTO MY LITIGATION CAREER, I encountered a humbling experience that underscored the chasm between academic learning and practical application. After meticulously researching and drafting a petition, I submitted it with a fair bit of early-career confidence. However, during the hearing, the judge pointed out a glaring omission: the absence of an interim prayer, or a request for temporary relief before the final decision. Despite the well-researched grounds, the court couldn't grant interim relief without the specific clause.
My law school education hadn't prepared me for such practical nuances, where meaningful relief could be thwarted in the absence of that prayer clause (ii). Fortunately, my senior was understanding and guided me to file an additional application. This incident has stayed with me, an echoing reminder of the critical need for experiential learning in legal education.
The Supreme Court's mandate: A call for practical experience
In May 2025, the Supreme Court of India reinstated the requirement for a minimum of three years of legal practice before eligibility for judicial service examinations. This decision aims to ensure that aspiring judges possess practical courtroom experience, enhancing their ability to deliver justice effectively. While the intent is commendable, it raises concerns about accessibility, especially for fresh graduates and those from marginalised backgrounds. This is precisely what a review petition, filed on June 16, to reconsider the judgement, argues.
