Legal Practice

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that aspiring judicial officers must have a minimum of three years of legal practice to be eligible for recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division). The ruling, delivered on Tuesday, aims to standardize eligibility across the country and improve the competence of the judiciary at the entry level. The judgment was passed by a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, in the case of All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India. “All High Courts and State Governments shall amend their respective judicial service rules to mandate a minimum of three years of practice at the Bar for candidates applying for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division),” the Court directed. These amendments must be implemented by High Courts within three months and subsequently approved by the respective State governments within another three months. However, the Bench clarified that this requirement will only apply prospectively. Ongoing recruitment processes, initiated before the date of the judgment, will not be affected. The Court justified the decision by highlighting the challenges posed by the appointment of fresh law graduates directly into the judiciary. “Judicial officers handle matters that impact life, liberty, property, and reputation from day one. Bookish knowledge or pre-service training cannot replace practical experience gained through legal practice,” the judgment noted. The Bench emphasized that only hands-on exposure to court proceedings and mentorship under experienced advocates can adequately prepare a candidate for the judicial role. The Court also pointed to behavioral and temperament issues observed in inexperienced judicial recruits as further justification for the practice requirement. Importantly, the three-year experience period will be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment with the Bar Council, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), due to the AIBE’s variable schedule. To verify a candidate’s experience, certification must be provided either by the principal judicial officer of the relevant district or by a senior advocate with at least ten years of practice, duly endorsed by a judicial officer. For those practicing before High Courts or the Supreme Court, the endorsement must come from a designated officer of the respective court. The ruling also allows experience gained while working as a law clerk to a judge to count toward the three-year requirement. Further, the Court mandated that newly appointed Civil Judges must undergo at least one year of judicial training before being allowed to preside over a courtroom. “The rules must explicitly include this mandatory training period,” the order stated. The case stems from petitions challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 2002 amendment requiring a minimum of three years of practice for judicial aspirants—a rule later adopted by several other states. The rule aimed to enhance judicial quality by ensuring that new judges have a grounding in courtroom procedures and legal practice. While the Bar Council of India and several state bar councils supported the requirement, citing improvements in judicial competence and integrity, critics—including law graduates and legal academics—argued that it created an arbitrary barrier. They contended that it limited equal opportunity and deterred young talent from entering the judiciary. At the heart of the legal debate was Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which mandates a minimum of seven years of legal practice for appointment as a district judge. However, the provision does not explicitly cover entry-level civil judges, whose qualifications are typically determined by state-specific judicial service rules. The Supreme Court’s latest verdict settles years of legal ambiguity and sets a clear precedent for all states to follow, reinforcing the importance of practical legal experience in the judiciary. Recruitment processes previously held in abeyance due to the case can now resume, but only under the amended rules moving forward. Case Details Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Case No.: I.A. NO.93974 OF 2019 Date: MAY 20, 2025 Click Here To Read Order Read More: Restaurant to Pay Rs. 8,000 for Overcharging Rs. 1 GST on Bottled Water: Bhopal Consumer Forum

No posts to display

Two Senior Chennai Customs Officials Transferred Amid Wintrack Controversy

DGFT to Reconsider Gold Import TRQ Allocation Under India-UAE CEPA : Delhi High Court

BREAKING | Mandatory To Provide 1 Month Gap Between ITR (Audit) Date And Tax Audit Date : Gujarat High Court