The Supreme Court today ruled on whether aspiring Civil Judges (Junior Division) should be required to have a minimum of three years of legal practice before being eligible to join the judicial service.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “We hold that the 3 years minimum practice requirement to appear for civil judges junior division exam is restored.”
The Court identified eight key issues to consider in the case. The first focused on whether the 10 percent quota for promotion to higher judicial services through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) should be increased back to the originally proposed 25 percent.
The Court held in the affirmative and directed, “quota be restored to 25 percent as per the earlier recommendation made in the 2022 judgment.”
The second issue dealt with the eligibility criteria for the judicial service examination. The Court held that a minimum of three years of legal practice must be included as a qualification and directed that the rules be amended to reflect this.
For the third and fourth issues, which focused on promotions for meritorious Civil Judges (Junior Division), the Court ruled that 10 percent of the posts should be reserved for promotion, allowing deserving officers to advance more quickly in their careers.
Addressing issue six regarding the suitability test, the Court observed that no straightjacket formula could be laid down and that the relevant authority must consider a range of factors, including the candidate’s performance, knowledge, and aptitude.
In regard to issue seven, whether the requirement of a minimum number of years of legal practice before appearing for the judicial service exam should be restored, the Court answered in the affirmative. The Bench noted that the earlier removal of the requirement had led to practical challenges. It emphasized the necessity of prior court exposure before assuming judicial office. Chief Justice Gavai stated, “The appointment of fresh law graduates has led to many problems, as seen from the affidavit of the High Courts. This is possible only when the candidate is exposed to working with the court. We are in agreement with the High Courts that a minimum number of years of practice is necessary.”
The Court clarified that the required three years of legal practice shall be calculated from the date of enrollment with the Bar Council, and not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). Noting the inconsistency in the scheduling of AIBE, the Bench held that enrollment date would offer a uniform benchmark. Additionally, a certification from the Principal District Judge shall be mandatory to validate the candidate’s practice. In case of practice before a High Court, the certificate must be endorsed by a senior advocate with a minimum of ten years of standing.
The Court also issued the following directions:
- All State Governments shall amend the service rules for Limited Departmental Competitive Exams to restore the 25 percent reservation quota.
- All High Courts and State Governments shall reserve 10 percent of the posts for accelerated promotions in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre.
- Where no rules exist for promotion to higher cadre, fresh rules shall be framed taking into account the candidate’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), judgments authored, and overall competence.
- Minimum three years of legal practice shall be mandated for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The candidate must obtain a certificate from the Principal District Judge or a senior advocate (in case of High Court practice).
- Mandatory training of one year shall be introduced for all new judicial appointees.
- The practice requirement shall not apply to recruitment processes already notified by High Courts.
Background
The issue dates back to the landmark 1993 Supreme Court judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which emphasized the need for a minimum of three years of advocacy experience before entering the judiciary. This requirement was later removed following recommendations from the Shetty Commission, which argued that it discouraged talented young graduates from pursuing a judicial career. After that, the Court allowed fresh law graduates to sit for judicial service exams, provided they completed structured judicial training. However, due to practical challenges raised by various High Courts, the Supreme Court revisited the matter. With today’s ruling, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of hands-on legal experience before taking judicial office and has clearly reinstated the three-year practice requirement.