Level the Bench: Judicial Internships Need an Equal Access Revolution

Hindu College Gazette Web Team
12 hours ago
7 min read

In India, judicial internships are often seen as prestigious, but many people find them hard to get because of unclear selection methods, favouritism, and unfair practices. It is important to create a fair and open process so that everyone can have a chance to access the judiciary and support the values set out in the Constitution. Judicial internships, particularly those by the High Courts and Supreme Court of India judges, have become synonymous with prestige and professional certification in the legal education circuit. For law students, judicial internships are not just about education; they represent career-defining chances opening up opportunities for future clerkships, litigation opportunities, and academic fellowships. But behind the shine of possibility is a discomfiting reality: judicial internship access in India is grossly unequal. The current selection process, widespread, unregulated, and informal, favours students of high-reputation law schools and urban centres and systematically bars meritorious aspirants with rural backgrounds, lower-profile institutions, and socio-economically marginalized sections.

In an age when the judiciary itself delivers great ideals of constitutional morality, equal access, and social justice, it is crucial to interrogate whether the existing model of judicial internships measures up to these ideals. This article explores the ways in which internships are earned, the structural injustices inherent in these mechanisms, and the pressing need for a transparent, standardised, and fair selection process consistent with constitutional precepts.

The Unspoken Hierarchy: Informality and Exclusion

In India, no uniform or centralised system of rules exists for judicial internships. Although a few High Courts, like the Delhi High Court, have moved to establish formal programmes with clearly spelt out eligibility and application criteria, these are exceptions and not the rule. For the majority of judicial internships, and particularly those at the Supreme Court, the process is not transparent. Applications are typically channelled through personal emails to judges or their secretariats, forwarded through informal networks of senior lawyers or professors, or occasionally aided by personal contacts within the judiciary. Since there are no published vacancies, standard deadlines, or organised application requirements, the system is more akin to a patronage network than to a meritocratic institution.

This access system naturally favours students of the top law schools, particularly the National Law Universities, whose faculty members and alumni have cordial relationships with the judiciary. These schools may even have special internship cells that directly work with judges' chambers, thus guaranteeing that their students get timely information and support in securing rare positions. By contrast, students at government law schools, local private institutions, and new law schools are often left without proper advice or even rudimentary knowledge of the application process. The outcome is a two-tier system in which privilege disguises itself as merit.

The disparities are not limited to institutional membership only. They cross the boundaries of linguistic proficiency, geographical location, and economic background. Judicial internships, particularly in Delhi, are usually unpaid. For economically disadvantaged students, the expense of travel, boarding, and living in major cities translates into an insurmountable hindrance. This is not a silent exclusion, however. Students, researchers, and activists have started to resist such disparities through critical intervention, such as writing pieces in legal journals, blog entries, and public debates. Their work not only records these systematized injustices but also functions as a form of resistance, mobilising structural changes and the democratisation of access to such upper-class legal sites. In speaking out against these practices, they reveal how unpaid internships fuel inequality in the name of meritocracy and call on institutions to rethink the systems in which opportunity is allocated.

A Constitutional Contradiction

In substance, then, the existing judicial internship recruitment model reinforces the very privilege and exclusion patterns that the judiciary insists it is fighting in its decisions. The paradox is stunning. Again and again, Indian courts have emphasised the significance of substantive equality and the elimination of systemic barriers. In State of Punjab v Davinder Singh, the Supreme Court acknowledged that formal equality, which treats unequal individuals identically, fails to address historical and structural disadvantages. The same logic applies to judicial internships. When internship positions are posted (or not at all) through unofficial means and evaluated according to arbitrary criteria, already privileged candidates continue to reap the benefits, while the marginalized are kept out of possibilities that might have changed their career trajectory.

Judicial internships are more than theoretical exercises; they are frequently the student's initial serious professional introduction. They are strong recommendations in an increasingly tight legal job market, frequently determining the course of postgraduate school admissions, clerkship appointments, and law firm hires. Withholding access based on a lack of transparency and a disproportionate system is not only unfair but also antithetical to the credibility of the judiciary as an institution. It indicates that the institution charged with enforcing the Constitution does so by standards that would fail to meet its examination.

Apart from the issue of equity, the system existing today also threatens diversity in the judicial environment. If interns developed today are overwhelmingly recruited from urban, English-speaking, upper-caste, and upper-class communities, the future bench and bar would be equally skewed. The judiciary would stand in danger of becoming increasingly disconnected from the everyday lives of most of India's population, betraying the vision of representational justice. A more inclusive internship system is therefore not simply an administrative reform issue; it is a constitutional necessity.

Global Parallels and National Precedents

Cross-country experiences set good examples for reform. In the US, for example, internships and judicial clerkships are normally filled through orderly and standardised procedures. Federal judges advertise vacancies on official websites, publicise eligibility requirements, and hold interviews to evaluate candidates. Law schools guide students through these processes, but the essential opportunity is available for all who qualify. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, judicial offices and barristers' chambers utilise centralised portals such as the Pupillage Gateway to maintain transparency and equity in selection. These are not infallible systems, but they are a big leap toward tearing down barriers of access.

Even in India, there are encouraging starts. The Delhi High Court Internship Programme, for example, although small in scale, is one of the few programmes to function with some semblance of order. It advertises for applications through public advertisements, lays down academic criteria, and has a determined selection timeline. Some High Courts, such as Karnataka and Kerala, have also started setting up internship guidelines in recent years, though implementation is patchy. Likewise, the Supreme Court of India has brought in a Virtual Internship Programme whereby students from all over the country, even rural and underdeveloped areas, can join without the weight of relocation or monetary stress. Furthermore, affirmative action instruments have been embedded in certain internship schemes to give opportunities to students from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other socially backward groups. Efforts are also being extended in tier-2 and tier-3 cities to make it a popular choice by creating awareness and motivating candidates who would not be able to apply because of no access or information.

The Path to Equitable Access

To improve the gap further, the system may include affirmative action plans. Preference or reservation might be provided to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, religious minorities, and economically weaker sections of society. First-generation law students and candidates from non-metropolitan areas might also be provided with a reasonable chance through outreach programmes and regional representation quotas. Economically weaker interns must be given financial support in terms of stipends or subsidised housing, allowing them to pursue internships without economic hardship.

It is also necessary to sensitise judges and court staff regarding the importance of diversity and inclusion within internships. Workshops, circulars, and judicial colloquia can provide an institutional environment that understands the imperative of mentoring and empowering individuals from non-conventional backgrounds. Persuading judges to take interns from a wider range of law schools and backgrounds would not water down the quality of the internship experience, but add to it in terms of diversity of views and life experiences.

Legal education institutions must also take an active role. Law colleges and universities need to introduce internship counselling and training modules in their curriculum to assist students in preparing for competitive applications and acquiring necessary skills. This is especially needed in institutions where students might not have the exposure or support networks available to those in elite campuses. Mentorship cannot be overemphasised in this regard. Alumni associations, legal aid clinics, and NGOs involved in legal empowerment can help bridge the gap for students from underrepresented communities in navigating the application labyrinth.

The discussion around the reform of judicial internships is not merely academic or bureaucratic. It goes to the very core of the Indian judicial system's dedication to justice, fairness, and equality. If the judiciary is to maintain its moral standing as the protector of the Constitution, it has to lead by example. Guaranteeing that judicial internships are not available on the basis of privilege or proximity to power is an important first step in that direction.

As we gaze into the future, our task is to convert judicial internships into spaces of privilege to tools of inclusion. An orderly, clear, and fair process of selection is not only desirable, it is essential. Not only will it inculcate fairness and diversity among lawyers and judges, but it will also assist in raising a generation of lawyers and judges who are more empathetic, representative, and constitutionally rooted.

The Indian judiciary cannot be indifferent to the ideals enshrined by it in its verdicts. Justice has to not only be done but be seen to be done, even in the modest arena of a student's internship request.

By Tarannum Naaz

A law student at Aligarh Muslim University. I am deeply passionate about social justice, judicial reform, and equality. Through my writing, I aim to spotlight systemic gaps and advocate for a more inclusive and accessible legal system.

References

Jain, N. (2010). Legal issues and concerns of internship in India. The FedUni Journal of Higher Education, (November), 40–46. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1746741
Aithala, V., & Suresh, K. (2022, January 17). Knocking on closed doors: India’s challenges in accessing legal services (pp. 6–7). National Law School of India University. https://www.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Knocking-on-closed-doors_Aithala_Suresh_2021.pdf
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2020). 8 SCC 1. Supreme Court of India.
U.S. Courts. (2025). Internship and clerkship programs. https://www.uscourts.gov
Pupillage Gateway. (2025). Application process for mini-pupillages and pupillages. Bar Council of the UK. https://www.pupillagegateway.com