Supreme Court seeks views of HCs, NLUs in plea to relax 3-year practice condition for disabled judicial service candidates

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the views of High Courts and National Law Universities (NLUs) on whether its previous ruling mandating three years of legal practice for eligibility to join the judicial services can be relaxed for persons with disabilities. [Bhumika Trust v. Union Of India & Ors]

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi opined that the views of all such stakeholders must be taken into account before deciding the issue.

The Court directed the High Courts and NLUs to file their suggestions within four weeks, after which it will hear the petition in detail.

The Bench passed the order on a plea moved by the Bhumika Trust regarding the Supreme Court's May 2025 verdict which ruled that a candidate should have at least three years of practice as a lawyer to enter judicial service. The plea challenged the ruling with regard to its applicability for persons with disabilities.

The Court said 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 Examination (AIBE).

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.

It 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 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.

Proponents, including the Bar Council of India and several state bar councils, argued that prior practice at the Bar equips 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.