In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court has held that aspiring candidates for judicial service must possess a minimum of three years’ experience as practicing advocates to be eligible for recruitment as civil judges (junior division).
The verdict was delivered by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, alongside Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran. The Court directed all State governments to amend their judicial service rules accordingly. This requirement, it said, must be accompanied by a certification from a senior lawyer with at least a decade of standing at the Bar. The Court also recognized experience as a law clerk to a judge as qualifying legal experience.
Additionally, it mandated a one-year training period for newly appointed judicial officers before they begin presiding in courts.
Importantly, the ruling will have a prospective effect. Ongoing recruitment drives initiated under earlier criteria will not be affected and may continue as planned. The new eligibility norms will apply only to future examination cycles.
The Court noted that appointing fresh law graduates directly to the judiciary has presented challenges. It emphasized that judicial officers handle sensitive matters relating to life, liberty, and property from the very first day of service. Hence, academic knowledge alone is insufficient; real-world legal exposure, gained by working with senior advocates and observing court proceedings, is critical for competent adjudication.
To accommodate variations in the timing of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), the Court clarified that legal practice experience will be counted from the date of provisional enrollment with the Bar Council, not from the date of passing the AIBE.
This judgment stems from a batch of petitions contesting a Madhya Pradesh rule introduced in 2002, which made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking to appear in judicial service exams. While the rule had been adopted by several other States, it drew mixed reactions.
Supporters, including the Bar Council of India, argued that prior legal practice is essential to ensure judicial quality and preparedness. Critics, however, contended that the rule unfairly excluded fresh graduates and imposed an unnecessary hurdle, thus narrowing access to judicial careers.
The constitutional debate revolved around Article 233(2), which sets a seven-year practice requirement for appointment as district judges, but does not expressly extend to lower-level judicial positions such as civil judges (junior division). This left State judicial service rules to determine eligibility, resulting in varied approaches across India.
In its earlier 2002 ruling in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court acknowledged the value of practical experience but had stopped short of making it mandatory. With this new ruling, the practice requirement has now been firmly reinstated.
The Court also directed that any recruitment processes previously stalled due to the litigation can now resume in accordance with the updated eligibility standards.
A full written judgment is awaited and is expected to provide further clarity on implementation.
