The introduction of a mandatory three-year litigation experience for judicial aspirants has sparked widespread debate among stakeholders. While the primary intent behind this policy is to improve judicial appointments through practical legal exposure, it has also attracted criticism for being exclusionary, arbitrary, and potentially unconstitutional. This paper critically evaluates the historical development, policy rationale, constitutional concerns, and judicial interpretations surrounding the three-year requirement. Using a doctrinal and analytical framework, it assesses the rule’s strengths and shortcomings, its impact on judicial recruitment and access to justice, and proposes reforms that reconcile merit-based selection with fairness and inclusivity.
