NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the mandatory law practice requirement for candidates entering the lower judiciary from three years to one year, while retaining its earlier decision that some practical legal experience should be required before joining judicial service.
The court also introduced a transition arrangement under which candidates applying for judicial service examinations until March 31, 2027, will not need to show prior legal practice. They will instead be deemed to have completed one year of practice for the purpose of applying for the examination, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran on review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment. Justice Chandran dissented and favoured retaining the earlier three-year practice requirement.
What are the new rules?
Under the transition arrangement, candidates applying until March 31, 2027, will not need to demonstrate prior legal practice. If selected, they will be designated as Trainee Judicial Officers and undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy.
The training will be followed by a one-year clerkship. The first six months will be spent working under a Principal District Judge or members of the higher judicial service, while the remaining six months will be under sitting judges of the concerned high court.
Candidates will receive emoluments during both the training and clerkship periods.
After completing the clerkship, the high court judge supervising the trainee will submit a report assessing the candidate’s progress and suitability. If the report is satisfactory, the trainee will be appointed to the regular judicial post and receive the applicable pay and service benefits.
For candidates applying on or after April 1, 2027, one year of actual law practice will be mandatory before they can apply for judicial service. They will also have to complete the one-year training and one-year clerkship after selection.
The practice requirement will have to be verified through a certificate issued after the candidate’s participation in actual court proceedings has been recorded, according to Bar and Bench.
The Supreme Court has directed high courts to amend their judicial service rules within three months. The new system will remain in force for five years, after which the court will review its implementation.
Why did the Supreme Court change the earlier rule?
The review petitions challenged the court’s May 2025 judgment, which had made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
While reconsidering the decision, the court retained the principle that candidates should have practical legal experience but reduced the requirement to one year.
“The direction is that 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,” the court said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
The May 2025 judgment had required candidates for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination to have three years of legal practice. It had also stated that the requirement would operate prospectively and would not affect recruitment processes that had already begun.
The earlier judgment, delivered by then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran, had additionally directed successful judicial service candidates to undergo at least one year of training before beginning to preside over courts.
Concerns raised over three-year practice rule
The May 2025 ruling triggered several review petitions challenging the mandatory practice requirement.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves questioned the rule, citing earlier Law Commission reports that had opposed making prior practice at the Bar a mandatory condition for entry into the judiciary.
Another petition, filed by advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, argued that the requirement violated constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment.
The petitions also raised concerns about the impact of mandatory practice on fresh law graduates, economically weaker candidates and applicants from socially disadvantaged groups. They questioned whether sufficient data had been considered before prior legal practice was made a condition for entry into judicial service.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling retains the emphasis on practical courtroom experience while reducing the period of mandatory practice from three years to one.
