Facts

A series of petitions came before the Supreme Court challenging the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the judicial services, particularly for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The core dispute arose from certain states insisting that only advocates with a minimum of three years' active legal practice were eligible to apply. On the other hand, in some states and High Courts, fresh law graduates were allowed to participate in the recruitment process, leading to an inconsistent approach across jurisdictions. The petitioners contended that such a rule creates an unnecessary barrier and restricts access for fresh, meritorious candidates. The Bar Council of India and multiple State Bar Councils supported the rule, emphasizing that prior practice enhances the quality and credibility of judicial decisions. Previous Supreme Court judgments, including All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002), had underscored the importance of practical experience but stopped short of mandating it strictly for all judicial appointments.

Issues

i. Whether it is constitutionally valid to mandate a minimum of three years' practice as an advocate to be eligible for entry into the judicial services?

ii. Whether fresh law graduates can be lawfully permitted to apply for judicial service exams without any prior legal practice?

Judgement

• The Court reinstated the minimum three-year legal practice requirement for candidates appearing for the civil judges (junior division) exam.

• All State governments are directed to amend their rules accordingly, mandating this minimum practice period before eligibility.

• This three-year practice must be certified by the Principal Judicial Officer of the Court or an advocate of that court having minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of that district or a Principal Judicial Officer of such station.

• In case of a person practising at the Supreme Court or the High Court, a certificate by an advocate having a minimum standing of ten years, endorsed by an officer designated by the Court, will act as proof.

• Experience as a law clerk to a judge is also recognized and can count toward this three-year requirement.

• Additionally, newly recruited judicial officers must undergo one year of training before presiding over cases.

• The requirement applies prospectively, i.e., it will not affect ongoing recruitment processes but will take effect from the next recruitment cycle onwards.

Rationale

• The Court observed that appointing fresh law graduates as judges has led to practical difficulties.

• It stressed that judges from day one handle serious matters involving life, liberty, and property, which require more than bookish knowledge.

• Practical experience—gained by assisting senior advocates and understanding court dynamics—is essential for judicial competence.

• The Court agreed that some period of active legal practice before judicial appointment is necessary to prepare candidates for judicial responsibilities.

Clarifications on Experience Counting

• The Court clarified that the three years of practice starts from the date a law graduate begins practice based on provisional enrolment with the Bar Council, not from when they clear the All-India Bar Exam (AIBE).

• This approach accounts for the fact that the AIBE is conducted at different times and should not delay the counting of practice.

• Certification of the three-year experience by a senior advocate is mandated to maintain authenticity and credibility.

• Importantly, experience as a law clerk to a judge will also be recognized, reflecting the value of courtroom exposure even in a non-advocate capacity.

Implications

• The ruling seeks to standardize judicial eligibility criteria across States, promoting uniformity in judicial recruitment.

• It emphasizes that judicial roles demand not just academic credentials but also real-world legal experience and maturity.

• The requirement acts as a quality control mechanism, ensuring that new judges are better prepared to handle the complexity of judicial functions.

• The decision reflects the Court’s commitment to upholding the dignity and independence of the judiciary by recruiting competent and seasoned individuals.

• This ruling will likely influence the structure of legal education and career planning for law graduates, encouraging early practical exposure.

• States and judicial service commissions must now revise and align their rules, resuming recruitment processes in compliance with this framework.