Supreme Court reduces the Civil Judge entry-level Bar practice requirement from three years to one, while mandating judicial academy training and clerkship
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday modified the three-year legal practice requirement for direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division), reducing the pre-examination Bar practice requirement to one year. The Court also prescribed a structured post-selection process involving one year of training at a State Judicial Academy and one year of clerkship.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran decided a batch of review petitions challenging the three-year practice rule. Justice Chandran pronounced the verdict and also entered a dissent from the majority view. The petitions challenged the Court’s May 2025 ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which had made three years of practice as an advocate mandatory for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Why The Supreme Court Retained The Practice Requirement
The Bench made clear that its review jurisdiction did not allow it to reconsider the reasoning in the original verdict. It also retained the core principle that judicial officers should gain legal experience before joining the Bench.
The Court observed that Civil Judges decide cases involving life, property and personal rights. Therefore, they need a clear understanding of court procedures and the roles of the Bench and the Bar.
However, the Court said the practice requirement must have a reasonable connection with its intended purpose. It noted that restoring the three-year rule without a transition period had created difficulties for young lawyers and law graduates. Many had planned their careers under the rules that existed before the May 2025 judgment.
For this reason, the Court found it necessary to modify how authorities implement the three-year requirement while retaining its underlying rationale. The Court also considered feedback from High Courts, law universities and National Law Schools. It found no reason to change its view that judicial officers need practical legal experience.
Transitional Period Explained
For candidates covered by judicial service examinations notified between May 20, 2025, and March 31, 2027, the Court has extended eligibility even if they have not completed three years of prior practice. These candidates will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice and will not need to submit a practice certificate for that period.
However, selected candidates will not receive direct appointments to regular posts. Instead, authorities will designate them as Trainee Judicial Officers and require them to complete one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy. The Court will count this training as one additional year of practice.
After completing the training, candidates must complete one year of structured law clerkship. They will serve the first six months under the Principal District Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service. They will spend the remaining six months under a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court.
During the training and clerkship, Trainee Judicial Officers will receive half the gross remuneration of a Judicial Magistrate First Class. They will also receive the facilities normally available at the Judicial Academy.
After the clerkship, the High Court Judge who supervises the final six months will submit an evaluation report. The report will assess the trainee’s progress and suitability. The authorities will grant regular appointment only after the Judge gives a satisfactory assessment. The appointment will include the applicable pay scale and service benefits.
Position After The Transition Period
For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, candidates will need at least one year of active Bar practice to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
The Court said this practice must be verified through a certificate of practice. The certificate will be issued only after the candidate’s presence and participation in effective court proceedings are recorded under a mechanism prescribed by the Court.
Even after completing one year of Bar practice, candidates recruited after this date will have to undergo one year of training at the State Judicial Academy.
They will then complete a one-year clerkship in two phases. The first six months will be under a District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service. The remaining six months will be under a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court.
The Court has directed High Courts to amend the relevant judicial service rules within three months of the judgment.
The Court also observed that the directions issued are expected to address the grievances raised in a connected writ petition seeking exemption from the three-year rule for persons with disabilities, particularly with regard to appropriate accommodation for such candidates.
Arguments Before The Court
The review petitioners argued that the three-year practice requirement could discourage talented law graduates from joining the judiciary after graduation. They also said the extended waiting period could particularly affect women and persons with disabilities.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that judicial training should be strengthened after recruitment. She suggested continuing legal education and a uniform training system instead of a mandatory pre-entry practice requirement across all States.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves also supported institutional training after law school. He argued that three years of litigation experience should not be mandatory, noting that Judicial Academies already operate in most States. He also pointed out that National Law Universities and other law schools had opposed the three-year rule.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar suggested limited concessions for certain candidates. These included relaxation in qualifying marks for women and persons with disabilities. He also proposed recognising judicial clerkships as legal experience.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Singh Bhati represented the Union of India before the Bench.
Background Of The Litigation
The three-year practice requirement originated from the Supreme Court’s May 20, 2025 judgment. The Court restored the requirement of prior legal practice for entry-level judicial officers. It also directed authorities to calculate the practice period from the date of provisional enrolment as an advocate.
The Court later clarified that judicial officers appointed before the May 20, 2025 judgment need not complete three years of Bar practice to seek judicial service in another State. However, they must have completed three years of service in their existing State cadre.
