THE SUPREME COURT today declined to review the core reasoning of its May 2025 judgment mandating prior legal practice for entry into judicial service, but substantially eased the requirement itself. It replaced the three-year practice mandate with a one-year requirement, to be followed by a year of institutional training and another year of structured clerkship.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran pronounced the verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging the Court’s earlier judgment, which had restored the requirement of three years of legal practice for candidates seeking direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division). Justice Chandran dissented.
‘No case to revisit the core reasoning’: CJI
Pronouncing the judgment, the CJI held that the Bench had “not found sufficient reason to intervene with the fundamental conclusion” reached in the judgment under review, and that “some prior exposure” to the legal profession “is desirable for a person seeking to enter the judicial service.” The Court found “considerable force” in the reasoning that judicial officers, from their very first day in office, are required to deal with matters of “life, liberty, property and personal rights,” making familiarity with court procedure and the working relationship between the Bench and the Bar necessary.
However, the Bench held that the requirement of prior experience “must also bear a reasonable relationship to the object it seeks to achieve,” and that its sudden restoration “without any transitional arrangement” had “visited hardship” on young lawyers who had built their professional lives around the regime that prevailed in the interim. On this limited ground, the Court held that intervention was warranted.
The CJI clarified that the objective underlying the practice requirement “can be achieved not only through conventional practice at the Bar, but also through a structured combination of institutional training” at judicial academies “and supervised clerkship,” which would be treated as equivalent to practice at the Bar for the purpose of eligibility.
Relief for candidates already in the pipeline
The Court held that candidates covered under judicial service notifications issued between May 25, 2025 and March 31, 2027 i.e. the transition period, would be eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement. Noting that more than a year had already elapsed since the 2025 judgment, the Court held that such candidates would be “deemed to have completed one year of actual practice,” without having to produce a separate certificate to that effect.
Candidates selected under this transitional dispensation will, upon appointment, be designated Trainee Judicial Officers and undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy. This will be treated as equivalent to a year of practice at the Bar for the purpose of the three-year requirement. During this period, trainees will be paid emoluments equal to half the gross remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class, along with other facilities ordinarily made available to trainees at the academy.
On successful completion of this training, the trainee officers will undergo a further year of structured law clerkship. The first six months under the supervision of a Principal District Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service, and the remaining six months under a sitting judge of the concerned High Court. This year, too, will count towards satisfying the practice requirement, with trainees continuing to draw the same emoluments as during their academy training.
At the end of the clerkship, the High Court judge under whose supervision the officer served will submit a reasoned evaluation report on the trainee’s performance and suitability. Only upon a satisfactory evaluation will the officer be confirmed to the regular post, with attendant pay scale and service benefits.
The regime after the transition period
For notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, the Court held that candidates seeking to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination must possess at least one year of actual practice. Such practice would be subject to verification through a certificate of practice, which the Court clarified “shall not be issued unless” the candidate’s “presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings,” including alongside a senior member of the Bar with at least 10 years’ standing, “has been duly recorded” in accordance with a mechanism to be prescribed.
Selected candidates will, notwithstanding this one year of prior practice, be required to undergo the same sequence of institutional training and clerkship applicable to transitional candidates i.e., one year at the State Judicial Academy followed by a year of clerkship split between a District and Sessions Judge or member of the Higher Judicial Service, and a sitting High Court judge.
Sunset clause and implementation
The Court directed State governments, in consultation with their jurisdictional High Courts, to notify the necessary amendments to their service rules within three months. It further observed that the scheme adequately addressed the concerns raised by the petitioners in the connected writ petition regarding accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Cautioning against treating the framework as immutable, the Court held that “judicial recruitment is an evolving process,” and that the effect of the revised arrangement can be properly assessed only once it has operated for a reasonable period long enough to reveal “whether the combination of limited prior practice, structured training, and supervised clerkship is achieving the desired objective.” It accordingly directed that the scheme would remain in force for five years from the date of the judgment, after which the Court may revisit it on the basis of material concerning the quality of recruitment and the performance and adequacy of the training and clerkship components.
Dissenting, Justice Chandran stated that he was “unable to concur,” and dismissed the review petitions.
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the petitioners expressed gratitude to the Bench for what they called a “very pragmatic scheme.” The CJI, responding, indicated that the Court did not wish to be “rigid” about the framework, noting that it would need to “see how it works on the ground” before revisiting it.
Background
The review petitions sought reconsideration of the Court’s May 2025 decision delivered by then CJI B.R. Gavai-led bench. The petitions sought to restore the three-year practice requirement, on the grounds that it risked discouraging meritorious law graduates, particularly women and persons with disabilities, from entering judicial service. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners had argued that strengthening post-recruitment judicial training, rather than mandating pre-recruitment practice, was the more workable route, pointing to the existing network of State Judicial Academies and the opposition of several National Law Universities to the three-year rule.
The amicus curiae had suggested calibrated relaxations, including recognising judicial clerkships as valid experience and extending concessions in qualifying marks to women and persons with disabilities, as a middle path between retaining and scrapping the requirement altogether.
