Archive · 29 Jul 2025
Court Practice Rule Raises Concerns on Equal Opportunity
The Supreme Court now requires people who want to be judges to have practiced law for at least three years.
This rule is to ensure judges have enough experience.
However, some people worry this might make it harder for women, people with disabilities, and those from poorer backgrounds to become judges.
This is because of difficulties like inaccessible workplaces and financial constraints.
To solve this, the article suggests considering exceptions and different ways for people to meet the requirements.
Supreme Court mandated a minimum three-year court practice for judicial service exams.
The rule aims to ensure judges have practical experience.
Concerns exist that the rule could disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups.
Accessibility issues and financial burdens pose barriers for women, people with disabilities, and those from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds.
Flexibility and alternative pathways are suggested to balance experience with equal opportunity.
- Who
- Supreme Court
- What
- The Supreme Court mandated a minimum three years of court practice for judicial service exams.
- When
- May 20
- Where
- Supreme Court
- Why
- To enhance the quality of judges with court experience, but also ensuring equal opportunities.
Concerns
Supreme Court
Accessibility
Concerns
The three-year practice rule may exclude those with disabilities.
Supreme Court
The rule is to ensure judicial experience.
Female participation
Concerns
The rule may deter women.
Supreme Court
The rule aims to ensure quality
Financial Barriers
Concerns
The rule is a financial burden.
Supreme Court
The rule ensures quality and court experience.
- Requirement
- Three years of court practice
- Target
- Judicial service exams
- Goal
- Enhance quality, balance experience, and ensure equal opportunity
- Potential Impact
- Disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups