In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a candidate should have at least three years of practice as a lawyer to enter judicial service (All India Judges Association and ors v. Union of India).
The judgment was pronounced by a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran.
"We hold that the three-year minimum practice requirement to appear for civil judges (junior division) exam is restored .... All State governments shall amend rules to ensure that for any candidate appearing for civil judges (junior division) exam shall have a minimum practice of three years. This shall be certified and endorsed by a lawyer having standing of 10 years at the Bar. Experience as a law clerk to judges shall also be counted in this regard. They (judicial service entrants) must undergo a year of training before presiding in a court," the Court ordered.
The Court, however, clarified that these requirements will not apply to ongoing judicial recruitment but will only apply prospectively.
"Minimum practice requirement shall not be applicable where the High Courts have already commenced the appointment process of civil judges (junior division) and this shall be applicable only when the next appointment process begins," the Court said.
The Court reasoned that the appointment of fresh law graduates as judges has led to a lot of problems. Inexperienced law graduates may not be adequately equipped to handle the important tasks entrusted to judicial officers, the Court opined.
“Judges from the very day they assume service, deal with (matters of) life, liberty, property, etc. It cannot be answered only by knowledge of books, but by assisting seniors (during legal practice), understanding Court. Thus, we agree that the reintroduction of some service (as a lawyer) before the (judicial) exam is needed," it said.
It clarified that the three years of legal practice can be counted from the date on which a law graduate starts practice on the basis of a provisional enrolment and not from the date on which a lawyer clears the All India Bar Exam (AIBE).
“We hold that experience shall be counted from when provisional registration happens. This is because AIBE is held at different times,” the Court said.
Whether or not a candidate has three years of legal practice is to be certified by an advocate with ten years of standing at the Bar, the Court further said.
It also held that a candidate's experience as a law clerk to a judge can be counted towards legal practice.
"All such recruitment processes which were kept in abeyance due to the pendency of this case shall proceed now in accordance with the amended rules as notified," the Court added.
The case arose from a series of petitions challenging a mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for aspiring civil judges, introduced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a 2002 amendment to its judicial service rules.
This rule, subsequently adopted by various other States, required candidates to have at least three years of experience as a practicing lawyer before they could appear for judicial service examinations for entry-level civil judge (junior division) positions.
The rule was introduced with the intention of ensuring that those appointed to the judiciary had a foundational understanding of courtroom procedures and practical legal skills.
Proponents, including the Bar Council of India and several State bar councils, argued that prior practice at the Bar equip judges with the necessary experience to handle complex legal issues effectively, thereby enhancing the quality of judgments and maintaining the credibility of the judiciary.
However, the rule faced significant opposition from law graduates and academicians, who argued that it imposed an arbitrary barrier to judicial service, effectively restricting equal opportunity for fresh law graduates.
They contended that the requirement went beyond the constitutional mandate and disproportionately limited access to the judiciary, deterring young, meritorious candidates from pursuing judicial careers.
The legal debate primarily centered on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which specifies that a person not already in the service of the Union or the State can be appointed as a district judge only if they have practiced as an advocate or pleader for not less than seven years.
However, this provision applies specifically to district judges and not necessarily to junior division civil judges, whose eligibility is typically governed by State judicial service rules.
In the 2002 All India Judges Association v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court had observed the need for practical experience for judges but did not make it a binding requirement. Since then, judicial service rules have varied widely across States—some enforcing the three-year minimum practice rule, while others continued to permit direct recruitment from law schools.
