Supreme Court reduces law practice criterion to become civil judge from 3 years to 1 year but adds clerkship and training criteria

In a key judgment on recruitment of judicial officers, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld its May 2025 ruling that mandated law practice as a condition for entry into judicial service, but reduced the experience prescribed at the bar from 3 years to 1 year.

Pertinently, the candidates who succeed at the judicial service exam will have to undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy followed by six months’ clerkship under the District Judge/Higher Judicial Service and six months under a sitting High Court judge.

This will effectively be a substitute for the remaining 2 years practice which was prescribed by the earlier judgment.

However, these rules will become applicable only from April 1, 2027. The Court has granted a key exemption with regard to a transition period running up to March 31, 2027.

For candidates applying within that date, no law practice experience would be required and they shall be deemed to have completed one-year law practice.

"The direction is that all law graduates will be eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement, having regard to the fact that more than one year has elapsed since the judgment under review was pronounced. Such candidates, for the purposes of their applications, will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice and shall not be required to produce a certificate of practice in respect of the said period," the Court said.

However, they have to undergo the training and clerkship as prescribed.

"Candidates seeking to pursue the aforesaid recruitment shall, upon appointment, be designated as Trainee Judicial Officers. They shall undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy. This will, in effect, be equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for the purposes of the three-year requirement," the order said

During the period of such training, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall receive an emolument equivalent to one-half of the gross remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Upon successful completion of the aforesaid training, the Trainee Judicial Officers shall undergo a further period of one year of structured law clerkship.

"The first six months shall be spent as a law clerk under the supervision of the Principal District Judge or members of the higher judicial service, and the remaining six months under the supervision of sitting judges of the concerned High Court. The aforesaid one-year period of law clerkship shall also be treated as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for the purposes of satisfying the three-year requirement," the Court said.

During the period of law clerkship, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall be paid the same emoluments as admissible during training at the State Judicial Academy.

Upon completion of the law clerkship, a sitting judge of the High Court under whose supervision the Trainee Judicial Officer has served shall submit a reasoned evaluation report concerning the progress and suitability of the trainee.

Upon such evaluation report being found satisfactory, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall be appointed to the regular post in the field and shall thereafter be entitled to the regular pay scale and other service benefits attached to the post, the Court ordered.

The above conditions for training and clerkship will apply to candidates applying after March 2027 as well.

They will, in addition to the above, also need to prove one-year law practice.

"Such practice shall be subject to verification through issuance of a certificate of practice, which shall not be issued unless the candidate's presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings have been duly recorded in accordance with the mechanism prescribed by the Court," the top court ruled.

The judgment was passed by a Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran on batch of review petitions challenging the May 2025 verdict.

Justice Chandran dissented and upheld the May 2025 verdict in entirety.

The Court had earlier issued notice on the review petitions and allowed them to be heard in open court.

The review petitions assailed the May 2025 judgement of the Supreme Court which ruled that candidates must have at least three years of practice as lawyers to be eligible to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.

Key takeways

• Till March 31, 2027, law graduates can apply without law practice.

• They will be deemed to have completed one year of practice for eligibility during this transition period.

• After selection, they will serve as Trainee Judicial Officers and must undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy.

• This will be followed by six months’ clerkship under the District Judge/Higher Judicial Service and six months under a sitting High Court judge.

• The training and clerkship together will count towards the practical-experience requirement.

• During training and clerkship, the candidates will be eligible for emoluments.

• Upon completion of the law clerkship, the sitting judge of the High Court under whose supervision the Trainee Judicial Officer has served shall submit a evaluation report.

• Upon such evaluation report being found satisfactory, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall be appointed to the regular post.

• For law graduates applying on or after April 1, 2027, candidates must have at least one year of active law practice before applying.

• In addition, they will also have to undergo the same training and clerkship as prescribed for candidates applying in the transition period.

• High Courts must amend the relevant judicial service rules within three months.

• The new scheme will operate for five years, after which the Supreme Court will review how it has worked.

Background

In its May 2025 judgment, the Court had said that the three-year practice requirement would apply prospectively and would not affect recruitment processes that had already been initiated prior to the date of the ruling.

It also held that the period of practice would be counted from the date of provisional enrolment. It also directed that candidates who succeed at the judicial exam must undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.

The Bench comprising of then CJI BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran had directed all High Courts and State governments to amend their service rules to incorporate the requirement.

Following the judgment, multiple review petitions were filed challenging the direction.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves filed a review petition challenging the verdict on several grounds.

The plea referred to Law Commission reports issued between 1924 and 1986, which opposed making prior practice at the bar a mandatory condition for entry into the judiciary. It also cited the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report (2022), which recommended that any such eligibility requirement should be introduced only after a wider consultative process.

The petition further questioned whether adequate weight was given to the existing training systems in State Judicial Academies before bringing in the new condition.

Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav also filed a plea contending that the requirement violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (guarantees legal equality and equal opportunity in public employment).

The petition sought deferred implementation of the rule, arguing that recent law graduates who prepared under the earlier eligibility criteria should not be excluded.

The review plea also expressed concern about how the requirement may affect candidates from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities. It questioned whether there was sufficient objective data to justify making three years of practice mandatory.

[Read Live Coverage]