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.
