The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 6) dismissed a writ petition seeking to treat the experience of a bench clerk in the district judiciary as equivalent to that of a law clerk for the purpose of fulfilling the one-year legal practice requirement for appearing in the judicial service examination.

Orally observing that the experience of a bench clerk was "ministerial" in nature and was different from that of a law clerk, the Court dismissed the matter.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana made the observations while hearing a plea filed by a bench clerk working in the district judiciary, who sought to have her experience as a bench clerk counted towards the eligibility requirement of prior legal practice.

The Court declined to accept the plea, drawing a distinction between the role of a law clerk and that of a bench clerk.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that law clerks have a "unique role" and that there was a rational basis for treating their experience as equivalent to legal practice.

"There is a clear rational nexus in a law clerk's experience being utilised as equivalent to practice, which cannot be conflated and extended to other ministerial staff assisting a court," Justice Bagchi observed.

When counsel submitted that the duties performed by the petitioner could also be considered, Justice Bagchi said that the duties were "ministerial, not intellectual". He further observed that the position of a bench clerk was a clerical post and could not be equated with the role performed by a law clerk.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner had previously appeared in the judicial examination held in 2023 but was now unable to practise law because she was serving as a bench clerk in the district judiciary.

Justice Mohana also pointed to the distinction between the two positions.

"You want to continue as a bench clerk and then want that to be counted as practice in a court of law. There is a huge difference between the two," she observed.

Counsel argued that the nature of the duties performed by the petitioner should also be taken into consideration.

Justice Bagchi, however, said that treating the bench clerk's experience as equivalent to that of a law clerk would amount to extending the benefit accorded to law clerks to other ministerial staff assisting courts.

"It is a reasonable classification. Law clerks have a unique role to play and cannot be equated with bench clerks. The only way of accommodating you is to equate a bench clerk with a law clerk, which we choose not to," Justice Bagchi observed.

The Chief Justice also remarked that the Court was attempting to facilitate opportunities for young candidates, but could not dispense with the one-year practice requirement.

The Court ultimately dismissed the plea.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court had restored the condition of 3 years' law practice to appear for the judicial service examination. In that judgment, the Court clarified that experience as a law clerk will be counted towards litigation practice.

In August this year, the Supreme Court relaxed the condition to 1 year of law practice.

Case : TAPASMITA SUTAR Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1224/2026 T