SC Eases Three-Year Practice Rule for Entry-Level Judges, Retains One-Year Practice Requirement. All States Asks to Comply within three months in consultation with state High Court.
NEW DELHI/SHIMLA: In a significant ruling on judicial recruitment, the Supreme Court has modified its earlier three-year practice requirement for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), holding that fresh law graduates can continue to enter the recruitment process during a transitional period.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment on August 21, 2026. The copy of judgment has been accessed by Himbumail.
The majority judgment, authored by CJI Surya Kant on behalf of himself and Justice Masih, modified the earlier 2025 ruling that had made three years of practice at the Bar mandatory for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
Justice Vinod Chandran dissented.
The Court, however, did not reject the importance of practical exposure before entering judicial service. The majority held that familiarity with court functioning, courtroom discipline, judicial procedure and the practical consequences of judicial orders remains important for a prospective judge.
At the same time, it held that the passage of three years at the Bar cannot by itself be treated as the only means of acquiring such experience.
Fresh graduates get relief
For recruitment notifications issued after the 2025 judgment and up to March 31, 2027, all law graduates will be eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement.
They will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice and will not have to furnish a separate certificate for that deemed period.
Those selected will not immediately function as independent judges. They will first be designated Trainee Judicial Officers and undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy. This training will count as one year of practice for meeting the prescribed three-year requirement.
The training will be followed by another one-year structured Law Clerkship. The first six months will be under the supervision of a Principal District/District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service, while the remaining six months will be spent under a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court. This period too will count as one year of practice.
During training, the recruits will receive fixed emoluments equivalent to half the remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the concerned State. During the subsequent clerkship, they will receive the same emoluments admissible during academy training.
One year of actual practice from April 2027
For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, the Court has prescribed one year of actual practice as the minimum eligibility requirement, replacing the earlier three-year condition.
The practice must be in the District Courts and will have to be verified through a Certificate of Practice. The High Courts will prescribe a mechanism to record the candidate's presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings.
Even candidates with one year of prior practice will have to undergo one year of intensive judicial academy training followed by a year of Law Clerkship, divided equally between the district judiciary and the High Court.
The Court directed State Governments, in consultation with the respective High Courts, to amend the applicable rules within three months.
Why the Court changed course
The three-year practice rule has had a long and chequered history. It was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Second All India Judges' Association case in 1993, with the objective of ensuring competent and independent judicial officers.
The requirement was subsequently removed in 2002 following recommendations of the Shetty Commission and remained out of the rules for more than two decades.
The requirement was restored by the Supreme Court in its May 20, 2025 judgment after several High Courts reported difficulties with fresh graduates who had no exposure to courtroom functioning. The Court had then mandated three years' practice before candidates could even appear for the Civil Judge examination.
In the present review, however, the majority noted that three years of practice can impose financial and professional hardships, particularly on young lawyers, women, persons with disabilities and candidates without established professional networks.
It also observed that the quality of practical experience varies considerably from one candidate to another.
The Court therefore sought a balance between practical courtroom exposure and structured judicial training, rather than treating three years at the Bar as the sole measure of preparedness.
Scheme to remain under review
The Court said the new framework is not immutable. It will remain in force for five years, after which data relating to recruitment quality, trainee performance, training and clerkship will be placed before the Supreme Court for consideration and possible revision.
Justice Vinod Chandran, in his dissent, disagreed with the review of the earlier three-year practice requirement.
He maintained that experience at the Bar is essential for law graduates before they embark on a judicial career and said the three-year requirement was necessary to expose future judges to courtroom realities and the experiences of litigants.
The judgment thus marks a significant recalibration of the entry route into the subordinate judiciary. The three years of mandatory Bar practice is replaced by a transitional regime. From April 2027, one year of actual practice backed by intensive judicial training and supervised clerkship.
#SupremeCourt #Judiciary #JudicialRecruitment #LegalNews
