The Supreme Court has modified its earlier direction mandating three years of practice at the Bar as a prerequisite for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination, introducing a structured transitional regime that combines limited prior practice with intensive judicial training and supervised Law Clerkship.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Augustine George Masih expressed the view that he was unable to persuade himself that review of the earlier three-judge decision prescribing three years of Bar practice before embarking on a judicial career was imperative.
The central issue before the Court was whether the three-year practice requirement restored by the Supreme Court in its May 20, 2025 judgment should continue in its original form.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The Court made an important distinction. It reaffirmed that some practical exposure to the functioning of courts is desirable for a person entering judicial service, particularly because a Civil Judge is required from the very beginning of service to adjudicate disputes affecting life, liberty, property and personal rights.
At the same time, the Court found that the mere passage of three years at the Bar cannot necessarily be treated as the only or perfect measure of practical competence. The quality of advocacy experience can vary substantially depending upon the nature of the chamber, the court in which an advocate practises, opportunities for appearances, mentoring and the financial circumstances of the candidate.
Thus, while the Court did not hold that three years of practice was inherently unreasonable, it concluded that the rule required modification in the manner of its implementation.
The dispute has a long judicial history. In the Second All India Judges’ Association case in 1993, the Supreme Court directed States to prescribe three years of practice as an essential qualification for recruitment at the lowest level of the judicial hierarchy.
The rationale was that practical exposure at the Bar would help ensure the recruitment of competent, independent and honest judicial officers and strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice.
The position subsequently changed following the Third All India Judges’ Association case in 2002. Relying upon recommendations of the Shetty Commission and developments in legal education, the Court dispensed with the mandatory three-year practice requirement. Fresh law graduates were thereafter permitted to enter judicial service, subject to appropriate judicial training.
That position continued for more than two decades.
However, in its May 20, 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court restored the three-year practice requirement for candidates seeking to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The Court had directed High Courts and State Governments to amend their rules accordingly. It also directed that Law Clerk experience should be counted towards the practice requirement and that selected candidates must undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.
The present proceedings arose after Bhumika Trust, representing several hundred persons with disabilities, approached the Supreme Court seeking, among other reliefs, dispensation of the three-year practice requirement for the candidates it represented.
The proceedings subsequently expanded into a broader review of the 2025 judgment, with review petitions challenging the mandatory three-year practice requirement itself. The Supreme Court also sought inputs from High Courts, Law Universities and National Law Schools before deciding how the recruitment framework should operate.
The Court’s exercise therefore went beyond the specific grievance of persons with disabilities and examined the broader question of how practical experience and institutional judicial training should interact in the recruitment of entry-level judicial officers.
The Bench headed by the Chief Justice declined to reconsider the fundamental proposition that some exposure to the working of courts is valuable before a person assumes judicial office.
The Court noted that candidates entering judicial service without any exposure to court functioning may require considerable time to understand court procedure, courtroom discipline and the practical consequences of judicial orders.
According to the judgment, practical exposure can help develop judicial temperament, patience, empathy, courtroom discipline and an appreciation of the respective roles of the Bench and the Bar.
However, the Court simultaneously recognised that three years of conventional Bar practice does not necessarily guarantee such competence.
A significant aspect of the judgment is the Court’s observation that the quality of practice may be more important than simply counting the number of years spent at the Bar.
The Court noted that a young advocate’s actual exposure may depend upon the chamber in which the advocate works, the nature of the court, opportunities to appear, availability of a mentor and financial circumstances.
The judgment also took note of the fact that the restoration of the three-year requirement had immediately affected a generation of law graduates who had pursued their legal education and prepared for judicial service at a time when fresh graduates remained eligible to compete.
The Court was particularly concerned about candidates who had already completed or were completing their legal education when the eligibility framework changed.
The Bench also considered concerns that the three-year practice requirement could disproportionately affect certain groups.
The judgment records submissions that young advocates without professional networks or financial support may find it difficult to sustain themselves during the initial years of practice, when remuneration may be uncertain.
The Court also acknowledged that women may face additional social and familial constraints and that persons with disabilities may encounter difficulties in obtaining meaningful opportunities for practice at the Bar.
Rather than creating separate eligibility standards for different categories, however, the Court opted for a uniform recruitment framework accompanied by structured training and supervised practical exposure.
The most significant practical consequence of the judgment is the creation of a transitional regime for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment notifications issued after the 2025 judgment and up to March 31, 2027.
During this transition period all law graduates will remain eligible to apply, notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement. For purposes of their applications, candidates will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice. They will not be required to submit a separate Practice Certificate for this deemed one-year period. Candidates selected through the recruitment process will be appointed initially as “Trainee Judicial Officers.” They will undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy. That training will be treated as equivalent to one year of Bar practice for purposes of satisfying the three-year requirement.
This effectively allows fresh law graduates to participate in the recruitment process while ensuring that judicial responsibilities are preceded by structured professional preparation.
Under the new scheme, successful candidates will not immediately begin exercising independent judicial powers.
Instead, they will first undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy.
The Court considered this institutional training particularly significant because Judicial Academies now exist across the country and can provide structured and supervised instruction in areas that young advocates may otherwise encounter unevenly during Bar practice.
The training will also allow candidates to be assessed not merely on legal knowledge but on practical skills required for judicial office.
During this training period, Trainee Judicial Officers will receive a fixed emolument equivalent to one-half of the remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the concerned State, along with facilities and benefits ordinarily available to trainees at the State Judicial Academy.
After completing the year-long judicial academy training, the selected candidates will undergo a further one-year structured Law Clerkship.
The first six months will be spent under the supervision of a Principal District/District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Services. The remaining six months will be spent under the supervision of a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court.
The Court has expressly treated this entire one-year Law Clerkship as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for purposes of satisfying the eligibility requirement.
The clerkship is intended to provide direct exposure to court proceedings, judicial decorum, interaction with advocates and litigants, case preparation, analysis of submissions, application of procedural law and the preparation of judicial orders.
The Supreme Court has also built an assessment mechanism into the new framework.
At the end of the Law Clerkship, the sitting High Court Judge under whose supervision the trainee has worked will submit a reasoned evaluation report addressing the trainee’s performance and suitability.
The assessment is required to consider factors including conduct, diligence, analytical ability, understanding of procedure, capacity to deal with cases, quality of legal reasoning and overall suitability for judicial office.
Only upon a satisfactory evaluation will the trainee be appointed to the regular judicial post and receive the regular pay scale and service benefits attached to the position.
The Court has prescribed a different framework for recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027.
From that date, candidates seeking to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination must possess at least one year of actual practice.
The practice must be properly certified and verified. A Practice Certificate cannot be issued unless the candidate’s presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings have been duly recorded in accordance with a mechanism to be prescribed by the respective High Courts.
Candidates selected under this regime will nevertheless have to undergo the same structured post-selection programme comprising:
One year of intensive State Judicial Academy training + six months of Law Clerkship under the District Judiciary/Higher Judicial Services + six months of Law Clerkship under a sitting High Court Judge.
Thus, the Court has replaced the earlier model of requiring three years of conventional Bar practice before the examination with a one-year actual practice requirement followed by two years of structured training and supervised clerkship after selection.
The Court rejected applications seeking to have the period spent pursuing higher legal education counted towards the minimum practice requirement.
The reason was that the objective of the requirement is to develop familiarity with the functioning of the judicial system, and higher legal education by itself does not necessarily provide the relevant practical exposure.
Although the Court did not create a separate eligibility regime for persons with disabilities, it specifically observed that the new directions should address the grievances raised in the petition, particularly concerning the need for appropriate accommodation for persons with disabilities.
The Court considered a uniform eligibility framework preferable to fragmented standards for different categories of candidates.
The Supreme Court directed State Governments, in consultation with the respective High Courts, to undertake and officially notify the necessary amendments to the applicable recruitment rules within three months from the date of the judgment.
The Court further directed that all recruitment notifications issued after the 2025 judgment and going forward must conform to the new framework.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the new recruitment model is not intended to be immutable.
The Court observed that judicial recruitment is an evolving process and that the impact of the combination of limited prior practice, structured training and supervised clerkship should be assessed after the scheme operates for a reasonable period.
The Court may revisit the framework based on empirical material concerning the quality of recruitment, performance of trainees and adequacy of training. The scheme has been directed to remain in force for five years from the date of the judgment, after which its functioning is to be placed before the Supreme Court for consideration.
His separate opinion therefore provides a contrasting judicial perspective on whether the three-year practice requirement should have been revisited within review jurisdiction.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
