Supreme Court Reconsiders Three-Year Practice Rule for Entry-Level Judges, Reserves Verdict on Review Petitions
The Supreme Court has heard a batch of review petitions challenging its landmark decision requiring candidates for entry-level judicial service to complete at least three years of practice as advocates or law clerks before becoming eligible for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). After extensive arguments from all sides, the Bench has reserved its verdict, setting the stage for a decision that could reshape judicial recruitment across the country.
The matter stems from the Court’s 2025 judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which restored the three-year practice requirement. That ruling reversed the legal position that had existed since 2002, under which fresh law graduates could directly compete in judicial service examinations without prior courtroom experience.
During the review hearing, petitioners argued that the mandatory practice requirement excludes many of the country’s brightest law graduates from joining the judiciary immediately after graduation. They contended that many students prepare exclusively for judicial service examinations during law school and are forced to alter their career plans because of the new eligibility condition. According to the petitioners, structured judicial academies and intensive induction training could adequately prepare newly recruited judges without insisting on years of litigation practice.
A significant concern raised before the Bench related to the rule’s impact on women candidates. Counsel argued that prolonged compulsory practice at the Bar may disproportionately discourage women from entering the subordinate judiciary due to financial uncertainty, workplace challenges and career interruptions. They submitted that the judiciary could lose a substantial pool of talented and diverse candidates if the requirement remains unchanged.
On the other hand, those supporting the existing rule maintained that practical courtroom experience is indispensable for trial judges. They argued that Civil Judges deal daily with evidence, witness examination, procedural law and courtroom management, making prior exposure to litigation essential for delivering effective and reasoned justice from the very first day in office.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justices A.G. Masih and K.V. Chandran, closely questioned both sides on whether practical experience could be substituted with stronger judicial training. The judges also examined whether the mandatory practice period strikes the right balance between ensuring judicial competence and keeping judicial service accessible to talented young graduates.
The Court also considered alternative models proposed during the hearing, including longer induction programmes, supervised probation, and enhanced judicial education instead of a rigid three-year eligibility condition. While the Bench acknowledged the importance of courtroom experience, it indicated that broader policy considerations, including the future composition of the judiciary, also merit careful examination.
The outcome of the review petitions is expected to have far-reaching consequences for State Judicial Service recruitments across India. A decision upholding the rule would preserve the requirement of prior legal practice, while any modification or relaxation could reopen opportunities for fresh law graduates aspiring to join the subordinate judiciary directly after completing their legal education. Several ongoing recruitment processes have already been affected by interim directions issued during the pendency of the case.
With the Supreme Court having reserved its judgment, thousands of judicial service aspirants, law students, practising advocates and State recruitment authorities are now awaiting a final ruling that will determine the future eligibility framework for entry-level judges in India.
