E-Paper
Supreme Court cuts practice requirement for entry-level judges to 1 year
The Supreme Court has replaced the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for entry-level judicial service with one year of practice.
The Supreme Court on Friday revised its eligibility criteria for selection of judicial officers at the lowest rung by reducing the three-year mandatory legal practice rule to just one and upon selection, requiring the trainee judge to undergo institutional training for a further period of two years.
At the end of the two year training—the first year at the judicial academy; six months with a district judge; and the last six months with a high court judge—the court required a report to be submitted by the concerned high court judge. The judicial officer will be regularised after the report is found satisfactory.
During the period of training at the state judicial academy, the court held the trainee judge to be entitled to a fixed emolument equivalent to one-half of the remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the concerned state. He would then serve as a clerk of either the Principal District Judge or District Judge or any senior judicial officer for six months providing a first-hand experience of conducting courts.
Also read: A review of the rulebook: Why the Supreme Court will take another look at its 2022 PMLA verdict
The final six months phase will be under a high court judge who will prepare a report at the end of the training. The bench said, “The assessment must include the candidate’s conduct, diligence, analytical ability, understanding of procedure, capacity to deal with cases, quality of legal reasoning and suitability for judicial office.”
The evaluation shall remain objective and reasoned and should not become an additional or undefined barrier to appointment, the bench said, adding further, “Subject to satisfactory evaluation, the trainee should thereafter enter regular judicial service with the status and remuneration attached to the post.”
One-year practice rule replaces three-year requirement
The decision by the court came in a batch of review petitions and writ petitions challenging a May 20, 2025, decision of the top court which re-introduced the three year legal practice norm after it was discontinued in 2002.
By a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant observed, “The purpose of an eligibility rule is to secure suitable candidates for judicial office. It should not, by the manner of its implementation, exclude candidates whom the judicial system would otherwise benefit from attracting.”
Also read: SC disposes of petitions concerning The Kerala Story, leaves legal questions open
New framework to apply to recruitments from April 2027
While the court made it clear that the changed criteria will apply to all recruitments to be made henceforth, the court noted that law graduates who were eligible from the date of judgment (May 20, 2025) till March 31, 2027 will be deemed to have undergone the one-year law practice. They were allowed to apply for selection as Civil Judge (Junior Division) without furnishing a certificate of practice. For all future selections after April 1, 2027, the court held that the decision of one-year prior practice followed by judicial training and clerkship will be applicable.
Also read: Supreme Court 5:4 order refines 1978 ‘industry’ test
Dissenting judge backs three-year practice requirement
The dissenting opinion was given by justice K Vinod Chandran, who upheld the three-year practice rule and dismissed the review petitions. He said, “The requirement of experience is the need of the hour and essential in the immediate future, otherwise we would be accused of creating a cadre of careerists rather than of jurists capable of enriching a robust system, alive to the needs of the nation, society and its people.”
The majority view by the CJI and justice Augustine George Masih said, “A period of three years would provide sufficient institutional experience to evaluate whether the combination of limited prior practice, structured training and supervised clerkship is achieving the desired objective.”
The court directed the states to amend their recruitment rules in line with the present order after consulting with respective high courts. The judgment held that the proposed scheme will remain in force for five years pursuant to which, the scheme shall be revisited based on the quality of recruitment, performance of trainees, adequacy of training and other relevant indicators.
Also read: Supreme Court judges, lawyers share bench in rare Lok Adalat to clear case backlog
Court seeks balance between practical experience and early entry
After pronouncing the decision, the bench remarked, “We hope this is a workable solution. The idea is to attract the best of talent to the judiciary.” The court arrived at its conclusion after going through suggestions from all high courts, law universities and other stakeholders. It was a common refrain that the three-year practice rule acts as a disincentive for law graduates desirous of serving the judiciary. At the same time, high courts cautioned that young graduates on becoming judicial officers lack expertise or training reflected in their inability to pass orders in crucial cases. There were complaints received of their temperament and rude behaviour with lawyers and litigants.
In addition, the court received requests to make concessions in the three-year rule for women lawyers and those with disabilities. The court was not keen to make any concessions as it favoured having a uniform criteria for entry into judicial service. The court was of the firm view that familiarity with the functioning of courts is an “indispensable precondition”. Further, it said that practical exposure and judicial training may be acquired through a combination of professional and institutional experience.
However, it added that the allowing “speed of entry” should not override the institutional need for experienced judicial officers. Providing a mix of legal practice, judicial training and first-hand experience of judicial decision-making, the court believed that the candidate could be assessed not just on legal knowledge, but also on the practical skills.
Frequently Asked Questions
