SC reduces practice rule for Civil Judge posts from 3 years to 1 year

The Supreme Court reduced the mandatory practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants from three years to one. The new scheme includes a year of practice, intensive training, and a clerkship, modifying a 2025 judgement. Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissented.

The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the mandatory practice requirement for lawyers seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) from three years to one year, modifying its 2025 judgement that had restored the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran issued the directions. Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissented, holding that there was no ground to review the earlier judgement prescribing three years of practice at the Bar.

New Recruitment and Training Model

For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, the Court has directed that every candidate seeking to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination must have at least one year of actual practice.

The Court has also directed that the practice must be verified through a Certificate of Practice, which cannot be issued unless the candidate's presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings are duly recorded through a mechanism prescribed by the High Courts.

The Court has further directed that candidates selected through such recruitment will undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by six months of law clerkship under a Principal District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Services, and another six months under a sitting judge of the concerned High Court.

Transition Period for Law Graduates

For the transition period, the Court has directed that law graduates can apply despite the earlier three-year practice requirement. Candidates will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice for the purpose of their applications.

"All law graduates shall 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 shall, for the purposes of their applications, be deemed to have completed one year of active practice," the Court said.

Court's Rationale for the New Model

The Court has retained the requirement of prior practical experience but changed the manner in which the objective behind the three-year requirement is to be achieved. The bench said the purpose of requiring practice is to ensure that a person entering judicial office has adequate familiarity with the functioning of courts. However, it found that three years of practice at the Bar, by itself, does not necessarily guarantee this.

"The object of the practice requirement is to ensure that a person entering judicial office possesses adequate familiarity with the working of courts. As stated by us above, three years of practice at the Bar alone does not ensure this. In our view, practical experience and judicial competence continue to develop even after a person joins the judicial service," the Court said.

The Court said this objective can instead be achieved through a combination of limited practical exposure before recruitment and structured institutional training after selection.

"The suggestions received pursuant to our order dated 15.01.2026 have also consistently pointed towards the importance of combining practical exposure with robust institutional training," the Court said.

The bench also distinguished between two questions. It held that some familiarity with the functioning of courts is indispensable for a person aspiring to become a Civil Judge. However, it said this does not mean that every aspect of judicial competence must be acquired before the examination through conventional practice at the Bar.

"Practical exposure and judicial training may be acquired through a combination of professional and institutional experience," the Court added.

The Court noted that Judicial Academies have evolved substantially and can provide, in a structured and supervised manner, skills that a young advocate may otherwise acquire unevenly during practice.

The bench also referred to the Third All India Judges Association case, where the Court had dispensed with the three-year requirement but recommended at least one year, and preferably two years, of training for fresh recruits before they assumed judicial responsibilities.

The Court also took note of the hardship caused by the 2025 judgement to lawyers who had completed or were completing their legal education when the eligibility rules changed. For more than two decades, fresh law graduates had been allowed to enter judicial service without a prescribed period of prior practice. The 2025 judgment restored three years of practice as a condition even to appear for the examination.

The Court said a three-year requirement merely to appear for the examination could push back a young lawyer's entry into judicial service by several years. It also flagged the difficulties faced by young advocates without established professional networks or financial support, women candidates and persons with disabilities in obtaining meaningful opportunities for practice.

The bench said the new arrangement was a limited intervention and that it was not holding that the three-year requirement was inherently unreasonable. Instead, the Court has combined one year of practice with intensive training and supervised clerkship, allowing candidates to acquire courtroom exposure while also receiving institutional preparation for judicial office.

Dissenting Opinion of Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Justice K. Vinod Chandran disagreed with the majority's decision to modify the three-year requirement. He held that the earlier judgment was a well-considered decision of a three-judge bench and that there was no ground for review. He said experience at the Bar was essential for lawyers entering judicial service.

Justice Chandran said judicial service could not be equated with other public services because of the nature of the work performed by judicial officers. A judge independently decides questions concerning life, liberty, property and reputation, and judicial decisions are not subject to ordinary administrative supervision, he said.

He rejected the argument that three years of practice is of little value because young lawyers may not initially receive briefs or get opportunities to argue cases. He said lawyers learn during their initial years by handling files, observing court proceedings, interacting with other members of the Bar and watching how trials and arguments are conducted. Drafting, research, cross-examination and formulation of arguments are also skills that develop through practice, Justice Chandran said.

Justice Chandran also opposed the structured training model introduced by the majority. He said candidates with one year of practice would have to spend two further years in training and clerkship, which could affect their remuneration and delay their entry into regular judicial service. He also raised concerns about different categories of candidates being subjected to the same or different training regimes.

He maintained that the views of a majority of High Courts had supported the need for experience at the Bar and that academic excellence alone could not substitute for exposure to the realities of litigation.

"The forensic and analytical skills of an adjudicator are better learnt in the profession by observing what happens in the Courts; not necessarily as a Presiding Officer controlling it, but as a keen and eager student of law; the court room being the most profound of all classrooms," Justice Chandran said.

Justice Chandran ultimately said the three-year requirement was necessary before lawyers entered judicial service. "With profound respect and intense regret, I beg to disagree and, in my opinion, there is no scope for a review of the well-considered judgment," he said.

Reaction and Five-Year Review Plan

The majority has said the new scheme should not be treated as immutable.

Senior Advocates Pinky Anand, Vibha Makhija and Colin Gonsalves appeared for the petitioners/review petitioners, Bhumika Trust. Senior Advocate Pinky Anand welcomed the judgment, saying it addressed the hardship faced by judicial aspirants and introduced a new model for training civil judges.

"The judgement has remedied the retrospective hardship caused to the aspirants and has introduced what will be a revolutionary step going forward in transforming the manner in which our civil judges will be trained. I personally believe that this will bring in sharper and more proficient judges at the district level," Anand said.

She also welcomed the Court's decision to empirically review the model after five years, saying it would help strengthen the judicial services and aid efforts to have more women judges in India.

The Court has directed that the scheme will remain in force for five years from the date of the judgement. It said this period would provide sufficient institutional experience to assess whether the combination of limited prior practice, structured training and supervised clerkship achieves the desired objective.

After five years, the Court has directed that the quality of recruitment, efficacy of training and clerkship, performance of officers and other relevant empirical material be placed before it. The scheme may then be revisited if necessary, the Court said.

The Court has also directed State Governments, in consultation with the respective High Courts, to amend and notify the applicable service rules within three months. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)