‘No Sufficient Reason to Intervene With the Fundamental Conclusion’: Supreme Court Eases Three-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judge Exam to One Year

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.