Judicial Services Exam: Supreme Court Mandates Minimum 3 Years of Law Practice

In a landmark judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a minimum of three years’ practice as an advocate is mandatory for candidates aspiring to join the judicial service as civil judges (junior division).

The decision was pronounced by a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• Mandatory Three-Year Practice: The Court upheld the requirement that candidates must have at least three years of experience practicing law before appearing in the civil judge (junior division) examinations.
• Prospective Implementation: The ruling will have prospective effect, meaning it will not affect ongoing recruitment processes. The new eligibility criteria will apply only from the next recruitment cycle onwards.
• Certification Requirement: The Court directed that the candidate’s legal practice must be certified by an advocate having a minimum of 10 years of standing at the Bar.
• Inclusion of Law Clerk Experience: Experience gained by working as a law clerk to a judge shall also be counted toward the three-year requirement.
• Provisional Enrolment Counts: Legal practice will be considered from the date of provisional enrolment with a State Bar Council, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), due to the varying schedules of the AIBE.
• Mandatory Training: After selection, every candidate must undergo a one-year training program before taking charge of a court.

Supreme Court’s Rationale

The Apex Court emphasized the importance of courtroom experience and practical legal knowledge in ensuring the competence and quality of newly appointed judicial officers.

“Judges deal with matters involving life, liberty, and property from day one. Bookish knowledge is not enough. Actual courtroom experience and guidance from senior advocates are essential,” the Bench observed.

Background of the Case

The issue originated from petitions challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 2002 amendment to its judicial service rules, which introduced the three-year practice requirement. Several States later adopted similar rules. While proponents such as the Bar Council of India supported the move to enhance judicial quality, critics argued it unfairly disadvantaged fresh law graduates and restricted their access to judicial careers.

The core constitutional debate centered on Article 233(2), which mandates seven years of legal practice for appointment as a district judge. However, the provision does not directly govern entry-level judicial officers like civil judges.

This ruling by the Supreme Court settles the long-standing ambiguity, making it clear that practical experience at the Bar is now a prerequisite for joining the lower judiciary across all Indian States.

Conclusion

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has restored a key eligibility requirement aimed at improving the efficiency, competence, and public trust in the judiciary. All State governments are now required to amend their judicial service rules to align with this ruling and ensure uniformity in the recruitment process of civil judges.