Courses
By Ankit Gupta
|
Updated on 20 May 2025, 15:05 IST
In a landmark judgment dated May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has reinstated a key requirement for candidates aspiring to join the judiciary. The apex court has ruled that only those individuals who have completed a minimum of three years of legal practice as an advocate will be eligible to apply for entry-level judicial service posts, such as the Civil Judge (Junior Division).
This order, passed by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran, brings clarity to a matter that has been debated and litigated for years.
This ruling effectively means that the Supreme Court restores minimum three-year legal practice as a precondition for entering judicial service, a mandate that once existed but was removed in 2002. Let's break down the details, reasoning, implications, and procedural changes that come with this major decision.
Originally, the requirement of three years’ experience as a practicing lawyer was included in most States’ judicial service rules. However, in 2002, this condition was set aside following the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and a judgment by the Supreme Court, which stated that fresh law graduates should also be allowed to enter judicial service.
Over the years, however, concerns started surfacing about the lack of practical legal exposure among newly appointed judicial officers. Many High Courts, along with senior advocates and members of the judiciary, highlighted the drawbacks of appointing candidates with zero courtroom experience. As a result, several petitions were filed challenging the amendment made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2002, which had eliminated the three-year legal practice requirement.
| Aspect | Supreme Court’s Direction |
| Practice Period | Minimum 3 years of advocacy required |
| Effective Date | Applies to future recruitments only |
| Eligibility Proof | Certificate by 10+ year experienced advocate |
| Additional Experience Counted | Law clerk experience now recognized |
| Training | One-year mandatory training for new judges |
| Provisional Enrollment Start Date | Practice counted from provisional enrolment, not AIBE date |
| Pending Processes | Ongoing recruitment not affected |
The Supreme Court clarified that the three-year period of legal practice would be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment as an advocate and not from the date of passing the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE). The rationale behind this decision is that the schedule and timeline of the AIBE vary across jurisdictions and should not hinder a candidate's eligibility.
By recognizing the provisional enrollment as the starting point, the Court has ensured uniformity and fairness across all States. This interpretation benefits aspirants who start working immediately after enrollment but may face delays in appearing for or passing the AIBE.
Importantly, the Supreme Court mandates minimum practice of 3 years as advocate only for future recruitment cycles. If any High Court has already started the selection process for civil judge posts, this requirement will not apply to those ongoing recruitments. This prospective application avoids disruption and maintains fairness for candidates already in the pipeline.
To ensure authenticity and to prevent misuse, the Court has laid down a rigorous certification process:
This detailed verification process aims to validate that the legal experience is genuine and not merely on paper.
In a progressive move, the Supreme Court held that experience as a law clerk to judges or judicial officers would also count toward fulfilling the three-year practice requirement. Recognizing the value of such roles in exposing candidates to the intricacies of legal procedures, court functioning, and judicial reasoning, the Court acknowledged that this experience adds practical value.
This decision expands the scope of eligible candidates while still maintaining the intent of ensuring hands-on exposure to the judicial system.
The Supreme Court was particularly concerned with the quality of justice and the preparedness of newly appointed judges. The bench observed that allowing fresh law graduates to take the bench immediately after their degree led to:
As judicial officers are responsible for decisions affecting life, liberty, property, and reputation, the Court emphasized that academic knowledge is not enough. Only practical experience, gained by working in real courtrooms under the mentorship of seasoned advocates, can equip a candidate with the necessary skills.
The Court stated:
“Neither knowledge based on law books nor pre-service training could be an adequate substitute to the firsthand experience of the working of the court system and administration of justice.”
This judgment is more than a procedural directive—it reflects the Supreme Court’s broader vision for improving the quality of India’s judiciary. The following steps reflect this vision:
The Court directed that all State Governments and High Courts must amend their judicial service rules to include the three-year advocacy requirement. This will bring about uniformity and clarity across the country.
Apart from experience, the Court emphasized the need for a one-year mandatory judicial training program for all new recruits. This structured approach ensures that by the time new judges assume office, they are well-versed in both the law and court procedures.
By acknowledging the value of experience as a law clerk and by enforcing a stringent certification process, the Court is laying the groundwork for an ecosystem where only genuinely trained and experienced legal professionals can enter judicial service.
However, the Supreme Court restores minimum three-year legal practice not to raise barriers but to set a professional standard. For aspirants, this is an opportunity to immerse themselves in the legal ecosystem before stepping into the powerful and responsible role of a judge.
Most High Courts supported reinstating the practice requirement. Only Sikkim and Chhattisgarh High Courts believed that the rule was not essential. However, the Supreme Court found the consensus strong enough to issue uniform directions.
Senior advocates and bar associations had also raised concerns that fresh law graduates often lacked the maturity to adjudicate serious civil or criminal matters. Their support played a critical role in the Court’s reasoning.
Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar, who assisted the Court, also echoed the view that some form of legal practice is essential before a person takes up the role of a judge.
| Year | Event |
| 1993 | Original SC ruling: Minimum 3 years’ practice recommended |
| 2002 | Practice requirement removed |
| 2025 | Supreme Court reinstates minimum 3-year legal practice |
With this decisive ruling, the Supreme Court mandates minimum practice of 3 years as advocate as a baseline eligibility for civil judge applicants. It signifies a shift toward a more experienced, prepared, and practical judiciary—one that understands not just the letter of the law but its real-world application.
For aspirants, this means that courtroom exposure, mentorship, and clerkships are no longer optional—they are essential steps toward becoming a judge. The Supreme Court has sent a clear message: our judiciary must be led by individuals who are not just academically qualified but practically equipped to uphold justice.
Yes, as per the latest ruling by the Supreme Court on May 20, 2025, a minimum of three years of legal practice as an advocate is now mandatory for candidates applying for entry-level positions in judicial services like the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam.
The Supreme Court mandates minimum practice of 3 years as advocate to ensure that candidates have practical courtroom experience before assuming judicial responsibilities.
According to the Supreme Court ruling, candidates must have at least three years of continuous and verifiable legal practice at the Bar before they can appear for any judicial service examination.
This aligns with the Court’s vision to promote experienced individuals in judicial roles and enhance the quality of judgments delivered at the grassroots level.
The Supreme Court clarified that the new rule will apply only to future recruitment cycles. Any judicial service selection process that has already been initiated by High Courts prior to May 20, 2025, will continue under the existing rules.
The Supreme Court restores minimum three-year legal practice provision prospectively to avoid disrupting current examinations.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the three-year practice period will be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment as an advocate with the Bar Council, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). This ensures fairness for candidates in different states where AIBE schedules vary widely.
Yes, the Court has recognized that experience as a law clerk to a judge or judicial officer will also be considered valid legal experience. This provision aims to include candidates who may not have courtroom experience but have been actively involved in legal research and judicial processes under the guidance of judges.
To validate a candidate's legal practice, a certificate must be obtained from an advocate with at least 10 years of experience at the Bar. This must also be endorsed by either the Principal Judicial Officer of the district or an equivalent authority.
For those practicing in High Courts or the Supreme Court, designated officers must authenticate the certification.
