Click the Play button to listen to article

Though the Supreme Court refused to review the judgment mandating prior legal practice before entering judicial service, it substituted the 3-year practice mandate with one year. The selected candidates will have to undergo training at the judicial academy and a further one year clerkship

The Court held that candidates in judicial exam notifications between May 25, 2025 till March 31, 2027 are eligible regardless of prior experience. However, such candidates, upon selection,will be appointed only as trainee judicial officers for one year. They also need to undergo a further period of one year structured clerkship.

The Court held that the sudden restoration of the three-year practice rule without any transitional arrangement has visited hardship on young lawyers and law graduates and hence, a limited intervention is warranted.

Also, for candidates in exams to be notified after April 1, 2027, the above arrangement will prevail.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice August George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran(dissenting) pronounced its verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier judgment which made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

Pronouncing the verdict, the Chief Justice stated that the bench did not see any reason to interfere with the fundamental reasoning in the judgment that a candidate must have exposure to the legal profession before joining the judiciary. The bench however expressed the view that the requirement of prior experience must have a reasonable nexus so that no hardship is caused.  The judgment does not require recosnideration on the requirement of prior experience.

The CJI's judgment issued the following directions :

The exemption in the transition period will operate from the date of the original judgment up to March 31, 2027.

All law graduates will be eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement, having regard to the fact that more than one year has elapsed since the judgment under review was pronounced.

Such candidates, for the purposes of their applications, will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice and shall not be required to produce a certificate of practice in respect of the said period.

Upon appointment, they will be designated as Trainee Judicial Officers. They shall undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy. This will, in effect, be equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for the purposes of the three-year requirement.

Upon successful completion of the aforesaid training, the Trainee Judicial Officers shall undergo a further period of one year of structured law clerkship. The first six months shall be spent as a law clerk under the supervision of the Principal District Judge or members of the Higher Judicial Service, and the remaining six months under the supervision of sitting judges of the concerned High Court.

During the period of law clerkship, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall be paid the same emoluments as admissible during training at the State Judicial Academy.

Upon completion of the law clerkship, a sitting judge of the High Court under whose supervision the Trainee Judicial Officer has served shall submit a reasoned evaluation report concerning the progress and suitability of the trainee.

For the period following the transition period, that is, for notifications/advertisements issued on or after April 1, 2027, the following directions shall govern recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division):

Candidates seeking to appear for the examination for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall possess at least one year of active practice.

For this purpose, the certification contemplated in Directions 7 and 8 of the judgment under review shall, for now and hereafter, operate as laid down hereinafter.

Such practice shall be subject to verification through issuance of a certificate of practice, which shall not be issued unless the candidate's presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings have been duly recorded in accordance with the mechanism prescribed by the Court.

Upon such evaluation report being found satisfactory, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall be appointed to the regular post in the field and shall thereafter be entitled to the regular pay scale and other service benefits attached to the post.

 Notwithstanding the above, candidates shall undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by six months of law clerkship under the District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service, and thereafter another six months of law clerkship under a sitting judge of the concerned High Court, in terms of the directions that we have already explained in detail.

During the period of such training, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall receive an emolument equivalent to one-half of the gross remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The Court had heard submissions from various counsel, intervenors and the amicus curiae, and reserved the judgment on July 28. The Court also heard a writ petition seeking the relaxation of the 3-year rule for persons with disabilities.

Background

The review petitions seek reconsideration of the Court's May 2025 decision restoring the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial officers, contending that the mandate may discourage meritorious law graduates from joining the judiciary immediately after graduation.

During the hearing, counsel opposing the requirement argued that the mandatory waiting period would adversely affect young graduates opting for judicial service. "If you delay by three years, they will not take up this profession. Especially women won't come, persons with disability will not come," one counsel submitted before the Bench.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that the focus should instead be on strengthening judicial training after recruitment. She submitted that there should be a system of continuing legal education even after law school and called for a uniform training framework across the country instead of different State Judicial Academies following varying standards.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves similarly opposed the mandatory practice requirement, contending that judicial officers should receive comprehensive institutional training immediately after graduating from law school rather than being required to spend three years in litigation.

Gonsalves pointed out that almost every State already has a Judicial Academy capable of imparting such training. He further submitted that National Law Universities and other law schools across the country had opposed retaining the three-year practice rule.

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar suggested that instead of completely relaxing the eligibility requirement, it could consider limited relaxations for certain categories of candidates. He submitted that concessions such as relaxation in qualifying marks could be extended to women and persons with disabilities. Bhatnagar also suggested that judicial clerkships could be recognised as valuable legal experience while considering eligibility for judicial service.

An application was also filed seeking to treat the experience of law officers of the PSUs towards the 3 year practice.

Some High Courts have supported the relaxation of the practice rule for specially abled candidates. Some Law Universities have also backed such a move. During an earlier hearing of the petitions, Chief Justice Surya Kant 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

Tags: