Supreme Court Mandates 3-Year Practice As Lawyer For Judicial Service

Supreme Court rules that three years of practice as a lawyer are necessary to be eligible for judicial service. Supreme Court upholds mandatory 3-year legal practice for entry as civil judges junior division and bars the direct recruitment of fresh law graduates.

The judgment was pronounced by a Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Mashih and K Vinod Chandran.

Read also: SC Orders SIT Probe Against BJP Minister Shah Over Remarks Against Col. Sofiya Qureshi

Notably, the recent judgment applies only to the upcoming appointment processes. The current appointment will be done as per the earlier existing provisions.”Minimum practice requirement shall not be applicable where the High Courts have already commenced the appointment process of civil judges junior division, and this shall be applicable only when the next appointment process begins”, CJI BR Gavai said.

CJI Gavai said, all such recruitment processes which were kept in abeyance due to the pendency of this case shall proceed now under the amended rules as notified.

The Court directed All State governments to amend rules to ensure that the minum practive of 3 -years must be made mandatory for any candidate appearing for civil judges (junior division) exam. This must be certified and endorsed bya lawyer having standing of 10years at the Bar or a law clerk to judges.

Also, the 3-years of legal practice will be counted from the date when a law graduate starts practice based on provisional enrolment and not from the date on which a lawyer clears the All India Bar Exams (AIBE).

The Court opined that the appointment of fresh law graduates as judges has led to a lot of problems. Inexperienced law graduates may not be adequately equipped to handle the important tasks entrusted to judicial officers, the court said.

Read also: NEET PG 2025 Supreme Court Hearing On May 20; Addresses Issue Of 2-Shift Exam And Transparency

However, the law graduates and academicians are opposing the SC judgement arguing it as an arbitrary barrier to judicial service, restricting equal opportunity for fresh law graduates. They contend that this goes beyond the constitutional mandate and disproportionately limited access to the judiciary, deterring young, meritorious aspirants from pursuing judicial careers.

In 2002, through All India Judges Association v. Union Of India case, SC had observed need for practical experience but did not make the requirement binding.