The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the experience gained by a law clerk cannot be equated with that of a bench clerk for the purpose of fulfilling the eligibility requirement of prior legal practice to take the judicial service examinations [Tapasmita Sutar vs Union of India].

A law clerk is a law graduate engaged for a fixed term to help a judge with research and drafting, while a bench clerk is a court staff member who manages courtroom administration, such as calling cases, handling files and recording orders dictated by a judge.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana today observed that the two roles cannot be equated while determining a person's eligibility to take the judicial services exam.

The Court was hearing a petition moved by a judicial services aspirant who had served as a bench clerk in the district judiciary.

The petitioner, who had previously appeared in the 2023 judicial service examination, approached the top court contending that her employment in the subordinate judiciary barred her from active practice at the Bar.

She consequently sought parity with judicial law clerks, whose clerkship period is counted towards the mimimum bar/ legal practice experience to write the entry-level judicial services exam.

The petitioner requested that her service as a bench clerk be similarly counted towards the mandatory practice threshold.

The Bench, however, rejected this claim of parity, holding that there is a reasonable classification between research-focused law clerks and ministerial staff.

"There is a clear rational nexus in a law clerk's experience being utilised as equivalent to practice, which cannot be conflated and extended to other ministerial staff assisting a court," Justice Bagchi observed.

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that she was placed at an unfair disadvantage as her employment prevented her from entering active practice.

The Bench, however, emphasised that the foundational requirement of courtroom advocacy to enter judicial service cannot be dispensed with.

"This is where we are trying to help the youngsters. But then we cannot give up that one-year practice condition. If you had one year of actual practice to your credit, then your bench clerkship will also be counted and you will be eligible. If you have no practice, then you are not eligible. First, you go for one year of practice," CJI Kant said.

Justice Mohana also remarked on the distinct nature of the roles of a law clerk and a bench clerk.

"You want to continue as a bench clerk and then want that to be counted as practice in a court of law. There is a huge difference between the two," she said.

The Court proceeded to dismiss the petition.

"It is a reasonable classification. Law clerks have a unique role to play and cannot be equated with bench clerks. The only way of accommodating you is to equate a bench clerk with a law clerk, which we choose not to," the Court said.

[Read Live Coverage]