SC restores mandatory 3-year legal practice requirement for judicial service aspirants

In a landmark ruling poised to reshape the path to the judiciary, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday held that aspiring candidates for entry-level judicial positions must have a minimum of three years' experience as practising advocates before they are eligible to sit for the civil judge (junior division) examinations.

 

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran unanimously upheld the rationale behind mandating real-world legal experience as a prerequisite for judicial service.

 

“We hold that the three-year minimum practice requirement to appear for the civil judges (junior division) examination is restored,” the bench stated, directing all state governments to amend their judicial service rules accordingly. 

 

“This requirement shall be certified by an advocate with at least 10 years of standing at the Bar,” the bench asserted.

 

The court clarified that experience as a law clerk to a judge would also count toward the three-year practice period. Furthermore, candidates must complete one year of judicial training before assuming courtroom duties, underscoring the Court’s commitment to both professional grounding and institutional preparedness.

 

The bench, however, made it clear that the reinstated eligibility condition would not apply to ongoing selection processes where High Courts have already initiated recruitment. Instead, the rule will take effect prospectively for all future appointments.

 

“The minimum practice requirement shall not be applicable where the High Courts have already commenced the appointment process. It shall apply only when the next round of appointments begins,” the judgement said.

 

The ruling reflects growing concerns over the appointment of fresh law graduates, many of whom are perceived to lack the maturity, procedural understanding, and practical judgement expected of judicial officers.

 

“Judges, from the day they assume office, are entrusted with adjudicating matters involving life, liberty, and property. These responsibilities require more than academic knowledge; they require courtroom experience, mentorship under senior advocates, and a grounded understanding of legal practice,” the court observed.

 

The bench also addressed logistical concerns regarding the timing of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), ruling that the three-year practice requirement would be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment as an advocate, not from the date of clearing the AIBE. This adjustment ensures that candidates are not penalized due to the staggered scheduling of the exam across the country.

 

The judgement came on a batch of petitions challenging a rule introduced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2002, which mandated a minimum of three years’ legal practice for judicial service candidates. 

 

While the decision aims to improve the quality of judges entering the system, it also raises important questions about access, equity, and diversity within the judiciary. The ruling may compel aspiring judges to reconsider their career timelines and could impact those from economically or socially disadvantaged backgrounds who rely on early judicial appointments for financial stability.

India