In a significant ruling delivered on May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has reinstated the requirement that candidates must have at least three years of legal practice before applying for entry-level positions in the judicial service.
The verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, in the All India Judges Association case.
The Court observed that the appointment of fresh law graduates without courtroom experience had “not been a successful experience.”
Key Court Observations and Findings
“For the last 20 years, during which the recruitment of fresh law graduates have been appointed as judicial officers without a single day of practice at the bar has not been a successful experience. Such fresh law graduates have led to many problems.”
The Court emphasized that:
“The judges, from the very day when they assume office, deal with the issues of life, liberty, property, and reputation of litigants. Neither knowledge based on law books nor pre-service training could be an adequate substitute to the first-hand experience of the working of the court system and administration of justice. This is possible when the candidate is exposed to the working of the court… and observing how lawyers and judges function in the court.”
It further stressed the importance of real-world courtroom experience in shaping future judicial officers:
“The candidates should be equipped to understand the intricacies of a judge and therefore, we are in agreement with most of the high courts that the requirement of the introduction of certain number of years of practice is necessary.”
Who Will Be Affected?
- The three-year practice rule will apply only to future recruitments.
- Recruitment processes already initiated by High Courts before May 20, 2025, are exempt from this requirement.
Proof of Legal Practice
To prove the three-year practice requirement, candidates must submit:
- A certificate from an advocate with at least 10 years of standing, endorsed by a judicial officer of the relevant station.
- In the case of practice in Supreme Court or High Courts, endorsement must be by an officer designated by the Court.
- Experience as law clerks will also count toward the three-year requirement.
Why Was This Rule Revived?
Most High Courts and State Governments supported reinstating the rule, arguing that fresh graduates lacked the practical exposure needed to handle judicial responsibilities.
The bench concurred, noting:
“More or less, all High Courts took a stand that a prior practice of two or three years is required for efficient functioning as judicial officers. Most High Courts and States are of the view that the entry of fresh law graduates to judicial service was ‘counter-productive’.”
Only the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh opposed the reinstatement.
Historical Context
Originally, most States required a minimum of three years of advocacy to apply for the judiciary. However, in 2002, the Supreme Court allowed fresh graduates to apply, citing a recommendation by the Shetty Commission, which believed the mandatory practice was discouraging talent.
The 2002 judgment stated:
“With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service… After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission… We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one year, preferably two years.”
Despite this, the Court now believes the earlier relaxation has not worked in practice, prompting a return to the older system.
Concerns Raised by Amicus Curiae
Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, acting as Amicus Curiae, warned that allowing fresh graduates without experience into the judiciary could lead to incompetence.
The Court acknowledged these concerns and agreed that while some candidates might try to “manufacture” practice by signing vakalats without actual work, practical exposure remains essential.
Other Related Directions
The verdict also includes directions regarding Limited Departmental Competitive Exam promotions, but the primary focus remains on reinstating advocacy experience as a baseline for judicial appointments.
Click here to read the full Judgement – ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA WP(C) 1022/1989
