RECENTLY, THE SUPREME COURT, in All India Judges Association (AIJA) v. Union of India (2025) deliberated on a seminal issue on the requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice for appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which the Court had abolished in the Third AIJA Case (2002).
This issue has long been debated, with conflicting perspectives. The Law Commission of India’s 117th Report (1986) supported fresh law graduates into judicial service but emphasised training to offset their lack of experience. Likewise, the Shetty Commission Report contended that modern legal education, especially the five-year degree’s practical training, made the three-year practice rule unnecessary, proposing institutional training instead. This view was later upheld by the top Court in the Third AIJA case.
However, the Supreme Court has reinstated the mandatory three-year legal practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants, emphasising that judicial officers handle critical matters of life, liberty, and property, requiring practical court experience.
