Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Minimum Practice Requirement

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reinstated the requirement that aspiring civil judges (junior division) must possess a minimum of three years of legal practice before they can appear for the judicial service examinations.

The decision is set to bring uniformity and practical rigor to the selection process for judges across India and has stirred conversations in the legal and academic circles.

The judgment was delivered by a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran.

The Supreme Court not only upheld the legitimacy of the three-year practice requirement but also directed all State governments to amend their judicial service recruitment rules to incorporate this condition for future recruitment cycles.

What Did the Court Decide?

The key directions issued by the Supreme Court include:

• A minimum of three years of active legal practice is now mandatory for anyone wishing to appear for the civil judge (junior division) examination.
• This three-year experience must be certified by a senior advocate with at least 10 years of practice at the Bar.
• Time spent working as a law clerk or judicial intern with a judge will also count toward this three-year experience.
• Experience is to be counted from the date of provisional enrollment as an advocate, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). This ensures fairness as the AIBE is conducted at varying intervals.
• Once selected, candidates must undergo a one-year training program before being posted to preside over a court.

Importantly, the Court made it clear that this new rule will only apply prospectively—i.e., it will not affect current or ongoing judicial recruitment processes where the selection has already begun. The new rule will kick in from the next cycle of appointments onward.

Why Did the Court Reinstate the Rule?

The Supreme Court based its judgment on a realistic assessment of the challenges faced by newly appointed judges, especially those who join directly from law schools with no courtroom experience.

The Court observed:

“Judges, from the very first day of service, are required to adjudicate upon matters involving life, liberty, property, and fundamental rights. These responsibilities require more than academic excellence—they demand practical understanding, exposure to court proceedings, and the maturity that comes from active legal practice.”

The judgment underlined that legal practice is not just about knowing the law, but also about:

• Understanding courtroom procedure and etiquette
• Learning how to argue cases and assist seniors
• Developing decision-making skills under pressure
• Gaining exposure to the human dimensions of justice

Background: Where Did This Rule Come From?

The three-year minimum practice requirement was first introduced in 2002 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which amended its judicial service rules. Over time, several other states followed suit, adopting similar rules to ensure that judges had some practical grounding in law before assuming judicial responsibilities.

However, this rule soon became the subject of legal challenges. Law graduates, academicians, and several petitioners argued that:

• The rule created an arbitrary barrier for fresh law graduates.
• It violated the principle of equal opportunity, especially when academic merit should be the main criteria.
• It was not constitutionally required, since the Constitution mandates legal experience only for the post of district judges under Article 233(2), and not for civil judges (junior division).

In contrast, bar councils and legal professionals argued in favor of the rule. They claimed that inexperienced graduates lacked the maturity and courtroom skills needed to make informed judicial decisions.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) and various state bar councils submitted that allowing freshers into the judiciary undermined the quality of justice and weakened public confidence in the system.

Constitutional Debate: Article 233(2) and Its Scope

At the heart of the legal battle was the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution, which states:

“A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader…”

This provision clearly sets a seven-year experience requirement for district judges. However, junior civil judges fall under a different category, and their eligibility is typically governed by State-level judicial service rules.

While some earlier court observations (such as in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002) case) had hinted at the value of practical experience, they had not made it compulsory—leading to inconsistency across States.

Some States required practice experience, while others allowed direct recruitment from law schools. This patchwork approach led to confusion and varying standards of preparedness among new judicial officers.

What Happens to Ongoing Recruitment?

The Supreme Court has clarified that the new rule will not disturb ongoing or previously advertised recruitment exams. Specifically:

• If a High Court or State PSC has already begun the recruitment process, the candidates will not be required to meet the new three-year practice condition.
• The new requirement will apply only to future recruitment processes, and State governments must now update their rules accordingly.

Moreover, the Court directed that all recruitment processes that were previously on hold due to the legal uncertainty surrounding this rule should now proceed as per the updated norms.

Implications and the Road Ahead

This decision is a turning point for India’s judicial recruitment system. It brings much-needed clarity, consistency, and an emphasis on practical readiness for one of the country’s most important public service roles.

Positive Impacts

• Candidates will enter the judiciary with a basic foundation of practical skills.
• Judges will be better equipped to handle real-life disputes from day one.
• It will raise the credibility and competence of lower judiciary, where many citizens experience the justice system for the first time.

Challenges and Concerns

• Fresh law graduates now have to wait for at least three years before becoming eligible for judicial exams, which may delay their entry into the profession.
• Those without strong financial backing may find it difficult to sustain themselves during the initial years of practice, especially given the limited pay for new lawyers.
• States will now need to urgently amend their recruitment rules, train certifying advocates, and prepare infrastructure for mandatory judicial training.