Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Review Petitions Challenging Three-Year Practice Mandate for Judicial Service
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on a batch of review petitions challenging its landmark decision that reinstated the requirement of three years of legal practice as a mandatory qualification for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). The case has attracted nationwide attention from judicial aspirants, law graduates, bar associations, universities, and state governments because the final ruling will determine the future eligibility criteria for thousands of candidates aspiring to join the subordinate judiciary.
The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment in the All India Judges Association matter, which restored the pre-2002 rule requiring candidates to have a minimum of three years’ experience as practising advocates before they can appear for entry-level judicial service examinations. The Court had observed that practical courtroom exposure equips future judges with the maturity, procedural understanding, and professional judgment that cannot be acquired solely through classroom education or pre-service training.
Following the judgment, numerous review petitions were filed by law graduates, judicial aspirants, educational institutions, and other stakeholders. They argued that the sudden restoration of the practice requirement disrupted the career plans of thousands of students who had prepared for judicial service examinations immediately after graduation under the earlier eligibility framework. The petitioners contended that the decision disproportionately affects first-generation lawyers, women candidates, and those from economically weaker backgrounds who may struggle to sustain themselves during three years of legal practice before becoming eligible for judicial recruitment.
During the review proceedings, the petitioners urged the Supreme Court to reconsider whether compulsory practice is the only effective means of ensuring judicial competence. Several alternatives were proposed, including enhanced judicial academies, structured apprenticeship programmes, probationary training, supervised courtroom attachments, and post-selection practical instruction. According to the petitioners, these measures could provide practical exposure without delaying deserving graduates from entering judicial service.
The hearings also highlighted concerns regarding unequal access to legal practice across the country. Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted that fresh graduates from metropolitan cities generally have better opportunities to obtain meaningful litigation experience than candidates from rural areas or economically disadvantaged families. They argued that the mandatory practice requirement may unintentionally reduce diversity within the judiciary by discouraging capable candidates who cannot afford years of uncertain professional income.
The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, examined these concerns in detail. During earlier hearings, the Court acknowledged that the rule may have a disproportionate impact on certain categories of aspirants, particularly women candidates, while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of ensuring that trial judges possess adequate practical legal experience before assuming judicial responsibilities.
Supporters of the three-year practice mandate have defended the original judgment by arguing that trial courts represent the foundation of India’s justice delivery system. According to this view, judges dealing with evidence, witness examination, procedural law, and day-to-day courtroom management should possess firsthand advocacy experience. Bar Councils, several High Courts, and many practising lawyers have maintained that practical litigation experience enables judges to better appreciate courtroom realities and improves the overall quality of judicial decision-making.
On the other hand, opponents argue that many successful judicial officers in the past joined the service directly after completing their legal education and subsequently developed their skills through judicial training and experience on the Bench. They contend that the judiciary should focus on improving institutional training rather than restricting entry through an additional eligibility condition that could significantly reduce the pool of talented candidates.
After hearing extensive submissions from all parties, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict. The forthcoming judgment is expected to determine whether the three-year practice requirement will continue unchanged, whether modifications or transitional arrangements are necessary, or whether the Court will adopt an alternative framework balancing practical experience with wider access to judicial service.
The decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences for judicial recruitment across India. It will influence recruitment rules framed by High Courts and State Governments, affect future judicial service examinations, and shape the career trajectory of thousands of aspiring judges. Beyond eligibility norms, the verdict may also redefine the balance between academic legal education and practical courtroom experience in preparing the next generation of India’s judicial officers.
