MERIT ON HOLD: REIMAGINING THE 3-YEAR RULE THROUGH A GENDER LENS

ABSTRACT In Indian society, the journey of women from being denied representation to gradually being granted rights has been long, complex, and filled with both progress and setbacks. Yet, even today, a woman’s path remains far more difficult than that of a man, especially in a system deeply rooted in patriarchal norms. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s decision on May 20, 2020, to reinstate the requirement of three years of litigation experience for entry level judicial positions such as Civil Judge (Junior Division) feels like a step backward. This move reversed a 2002 ruling that had allowed fresh law graduates to apply directly. While the intention to strengthen judicial efficiency may be valid, its impact cannot be ignored. For countless women who already face systemic and social barriers in accessing the legal profession, this new rule becomes yet another hurdle. Instead of opening doors, it risks shutting them out from a space they have fought so hard to enter. The mandatory 3-year practice requirement often becomes a significant barrier for women aspiring to enter the judiciary. In a society where deep-rooted stigma and gender bias still persist, many women see the judiciary as a relatively secure and respectable career path within the legal profession. However, the societal pressures, combined with preconceived notions about a woman’s role in law, often discourage them from pursuing litigation as a long-term profession. For such women, the judiciary offers not just a profession but a dignified escape and a means to continue their legal journey on more equitable terms. Keywords - Gender, discrimination, Judiciary etc.