In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a candidate should have at least three years of practice as a lawyer to enter judicial service [All India Judges Association and ors v. Union of India]..The judgment was pronounced by a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran."All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination," the Court ordered.It said that such amendments to the rules must be carried out by High Courts within three months, and that these amendments must then be approved by the State governments within a further period of three months. .The Court, however, clarified that this requirement of having at least three years of legal practice for entry to judicial service will not apply to ongoing judicial recruitment but will only apply prospectively. "It is further directed that the said requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the concerned High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of this judgment and shall be applicable only from the next recruitment process," the Court said. .The Court reasoned 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 opined."The Judges from the very day on which they assume office have to deal with the questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of litigants. As rightly observed, neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court-system and the administration of justice. This is possible only when a candidate is exposed to the atmosphere in the court by assisting the seniors and observing how the lawyers and the Judges function in the court. The candidate should be equipped to understand the intricacies of the functions of a Judge. The experience of various High Courts has also shown that such fresh law graduates, upon their entry in judicial service, begin to show behavioural and temperament problems," the judgment reads. .It clarified that the three years of legal practice can be counted from the date on which a law graduate starts practice on the basis of a provisional enrolment and not from the date on which a lawyer clears the All India Bar Exam (AIBE).“We hold that experience shall be counted from when provisional registration happens. This is because AIBE is held at different times,” the Court said..Whether or not a candidate has three years of legal practice is to be certified, either (a) by the concerned principal judicial officer or (b) by an advocate with ten years of standing at the Bar, duly endorsed by the principal judicial officer of such a district or station.If the candidate has been practicing before the High Courts or Supreme Court, the certificate shall be issued by an advocate with ten years of standing, duly endorsed by an officer designated by the High Court or Supreme Court..The Court also held that a candidate's experience as a law clerk to a judge can be counted towards legal practice. Notably, the Court has further ordered that entry-level judicial candidates must undergo at least one year of training before they are permitted to preside over a court. "The Rules shall also mandate that the candidates who are appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to their selection through the examination must compulsorily undergo at least 1 year of training before presiding in a Court," the Court said. .It added that all recruitment processes that were kept in abeyance due to the pendency of this case can proceed now in accordance with the amended rules..The case arose from a series of petitions challenging a mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for aspiring civil judges, introduced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a 2002 amendment to its judicial service rules.This rule, subsequently adopted by various other States, required candidates to have at least three years of experience as a practicing lawyer before they could appear for judicial service examinations for entry-level civil judge (junior division) positions..The rule was introduced with the intention of ensuring that those appointed to the judiciary had a foundational understanding of courtroom procedures and practical legal skills. Proponents, including the Bar Council of India and several State bar councils, argued that prior practice at the Bar equip judges with the necessary experience to handle complex legal issues effectively, thereby enhancing the quality of judgments and maintaining the credibility of the judiciary..However, the rule faced significant opposition from law graduates and academicians, who argued that it imposed an arbitrary barrier to judicial service, effectively restricting equal opportunity for fresh law graduates. They contended that the requirement went beyond the constitutional mandate and disproportionately limited access to the judiciary, deterring young, meritorious candidates from pursuing judicial careers..The legal debate primarily centered on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which specifies that a person not already in the service of the Union or the State can be appointed as a district judge only if they have practiced as an advocate or pleader for not less than seven years.However, this provision applies specifically to district judges and not necessarily to junior division civil judges, whose eligibility is typically governed by State judicial service rules.In the 2002 All India Judges Association v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court had observed the need for practical experience for judges but did not make it a binding requirement. Since then, judicial service rules have varied widely across States—some enforcing the three-year minimum practice rule, while others continued to permit direct recruitment from law schools..[Read Judgment].[Read Live Coverage]
