The Supreme Court has modified its earlier requirement of three years’ legal practice for candidates seeking direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), replacing the three-year requirement with one year of practice before appearing for the examination. Candidates selected through the recruitment process will thereafter be required to undergo one year of compulsory training before they can preside over a court.
The ruling came in the batch of review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment, which had restored the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service.
The 2025 judgment had required candidates to have three years of practice, calculated from the date of provisional enrolment with the State Bar Council. It had also recognised experience as a Law Clerk with a Judge or Judicial Officer for the purpose of calculating the qualifying period and directed that selected Civil Judges undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.
Also Read: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Challenge To 3-Year Practice Rule For Entry Into Judicial Service
The majority of a 3-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant has now substantially relaxed the eligibility condition. Candidates will need one year of practice to become eligible to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. This means that law graduates will no longer have to wait three years after enrolment before they can compete for entry-level judicial service.
The Court’s earlier concern that newly recruited judges should possess practical exposure has, however, been retained through the combination of one year of Bar experience and mandatory post-selection judicial training.
Candidates who clear the recruitment process will be required to undergo one year of training at the relevant Judicial Academy before being permitted to preside over a court.
Why Was The 3-Year Rule Reconsidered?
The review petitions had challenged the 2025 requirement on several grounds, including its potential impact on young law graduates, women candidates and persons with disabilities, who would have to spend an additional three years before becoming eligible for judicial recruitment.
Also Read: Supreme Court Flags Gender Impact of Three-Year Bar Practice Rule for Judicial Service Appointments
During the July 2026 hearing, counsel opposing the three-year requirement argued that the mandatory waiting period could discourage young graduates from choosing judicial service. Senior Advocate Pinky Anand advocated strengthening judicial education and training instead, while Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argued that candidates could receive intensive institutional training immediately after law school.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar had suggested a more nuanced approach, including recognising judicial clerkships as relevant legal experience and considering relaxations for certain categories of candidates.
The Court had reserved judgment on July 28 after hearing the review petitions and a separate plea seeking relaxation of the practice requirement for persons with disabilities.