'3-Year Practice Condition Should Remain, Only Issue Is Modalities': Supreme Court In Review; Extends Civil Judge Application Dates

While hearing petitions seeking review of the 3-year practice rule, the Supreme Court on Friday directed all High Courts to extend the last date of application for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Posts until April 30, 2026.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran ordered :

"All the High Courts are directed to extend the date of last date of submission of applications if they have already advertised the post up to 30th of April 2026. Fresh advertisement to be issued by State/High Courts or State Public Service Commission shall also have the deadline of April 30, 2026."

The bench passed the order after being informed that the recruitment process in some states have started. The bench will hear the review petitions next week. Though Senior Advocate Pinky Anand requested the Court to keep in abeyance the practice requirement, the bench refused. The CJI assured that the review petitions will be taken up next week, and told that the extension of date will take care of the urgency aspect.

During the hearing today, CJI Surya Kant observed that the 3-year mandate has been set by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which should be respected. The only issue is evolving the modalities for implementing the rule, the CJI said.

"Ultimately, let's be very clear. The practice condition will have to be there. There is the view taken by a bench and we should respect that bench. The only issue is the modalities of giving effect to that," CJI Surya Kant said. "3 years [condition] should be there. But does that mean an advocate sitting idle in one court or the other and watching? Is that going to make them eligible? Or make them free legal aid counsel. That is a very good idea," CJI said.

"The point of the practice requirement is that you learn something," CJI stated.

The CJI also commented during the hearing that special relaxations for women and specially abled persons may not be practical.

Want mature persons to come to judiciary : CJI

At the outset, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in the matter, apprised the bench about the suggestions given by the High Courts and law universities. He informed that High Courts have broadly supported the practice requirement, with some High Courts suggesting certain relaxations for candidates with disabilities. Some law universities have opposed the practice requirement, and many have suggested alternatives for persons with disabilities. Prof. Faizan Mustafa, through the CNLU, has supported doing away with the practice requirement and suggested increasing the training period for civil judges, the amicus stated.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, submitted that the practice requirement created several hardships and will increase the age of candidates coming to the entry posts, since the exams are not regularly held on an annual basis. She also contended that the requirement put women at more hardship. She recommended that the Court stay the mandate, while the modalities are re-assessed.

Justice Vinod Chandran commented that the call for removal of the practice requirement was being made at the instance of "coaching centres. "This is about the coaching centres. I don't mind saying this in open court. I have been a chief justice, I have been a senior judge in the court and I have gone through interviews. We are saying this from experience," Justice Chandran said.

CJI Surya Kant said, "We want that slightly mature persons to come in judicial services."

Relaxations for women and specially abled persons may not be workable : CJI

The amicus submitted that there is a suggestion to relax the requirement for women and specially abled persons.  "One suggestion is that some relaxation only for women and persons were disabilities. They may be permitted to complete the requirement either prior to or subsequent to clearing the exam," the amicus said.

"That may not be practical," CJI stated.

Senior Advocate Nandita Rao submitted that the condition has a long term adverse impact on women professionals. She pointed out that while women may be able to manage at the entry level, being pushed back at a later stage in their careers can be particularly damaging because that period is crucial for professional growth.

She added that if women are forced to take a break of several years, it becomes extremely difficult for them to regain momentum in their careers. Rao also noted that such interruptions often lead to social pressure within families for women to abandon their professional paths altogether. She emphasised that this stage also coincides with women's reproductive years, and professional barriers should not force them to compromise their career progression.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves submitted that strengthening training mechanisms for judicial officers would be a better approach than insisting on years of practice at the Bar. He pointed out that there has been a significant expansion of judicial academies and structured judicial training programmes.

According to him, the global trend is moving away from relying solely on prior practice and instead towards intensive institutional training for judges. Gonsalves suggested that, in the Indian context as well, greater emphasis should be placed on training judicial officers after they join service.

During the exchange, the Chief Justice remarked that one possible model could be to recruit talented candidates and retain them within the system while providing rigorous training. The Court observed that requiring candidates to spend three years in practice before being considered could lead to uncertainty about whether they would eventually return to join the judicial service.

"You put the best of the talent, keep it in your kitty, and then you put them to training. That is one way. For 3 years you abandon them that unless you go there and practice, I am not going to consider you, and in 3 years, God knows where they will be," CJI said.

Gonsalves further said that it would be necessary to examine how many graduates from National Law Universities would still be interested in joining the judiciary after the three year practice rule. He added that a significant number might abandon litigation altogether during that period, though the exact statistics would have to be verified.

Background

The review petitions arise from the Supreme Court's May 20, 2025 judgment which restored the requirement that candidates must have a minimum of three years' practice as advocates to be eligible for recruitment to entry-level judicial service posts such as Civil Judge (Junior Division).

The Court held that prior courtroom experience was necessary to ensure competence, maturity and practical understanding of trial court functioning among judicial officers. The judgment revived an earlier practice condition which had been relaxed in 2002 to allow fresh law graduates to compete directly in judicial service examinations.

Subsequently, review petitions were filed challenging the ruling. One of the petitioners, advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, contended that the direction imposing a uniform practice requirement was issued without adequate empirical material and overlooked recommendations of the Shetty Commission which had favoured removal of the condition in view of internships and court exposure during legal education.

It was also argued that candidates undergo institutional training before assuming judicial office and therefore a mandatory pre-entry practice period may not be necessary.

The review pleas further claim that the requirement disproportionately affects aspirants from economically weaker and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, including SC, ST and OBC candidates, and excludes law graduates working in non-litigation roles such as law firms, public sector undertakings and corporate legal departments despite their relevant legal experience.

The petitioners have also argued that the judgment effectively created a blanket disqualification for fresh law graduates without legislative backing and imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

On of the pleas has specifically sought exemption for persons with disabilities from the three-year practice requirement, citing structural barriers in accessing litigation work.

On February 10, 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the review petitions to be heard in open court, an exception to the usual practice of deciding review matters in chambers without oral arguments. Notice was issued to the States and High Courts.

While hearing the matter earlier, the Court directed all High Courts and law universities to submit suggestions on the issue of exempting persons with disabilities from the rule before the Court takes a holistic view.

Pursuant to this direction, responses from several High Courts and legal institutions have now been placed before the Court through a compilation filed by the amicus curiae.

During the hearing of the review petitions last month, the Chief Justice had orally commented that the 3-year rule was disproportionately affecting women candidates.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 001110 / 2025 and connected cases

Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases