A bench clerk’s service in the district judiciary cannot be set beside a law clerk’s when the practice requirement for judicial service is applied, the Supreme Court has said in dismissing a petition on the point.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Turning down a petition from a district judiciary bench clerk, the Supreme Court has refused to treat a bench clerk’s experience as equal to a law clerk’s for the practice requirement in judicial service examinations. [Tapasmita Sutar v. Union of India]
The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.
Where the Bench drew the line
The Bench described a bench clerk’s work as “ministerial” and not “intellectual”. Justice Bagchi set out why law clerks are placed differently:
“There is a clear rational nexus in a law clerk’s experience being utilised as equivalent to practice, which cannot be conflated and extended to other ministerial staff assisting a court.”
He went on to call the distinction a reasonable one:
“It is a reasonable classification. Law clerks have a unique role to play and cannot be equated with bench clerks.”
Justice Mohana was more direct with the petitioner:
“You want to continue as a bench clerk and then want that to be counted as practice in a court of law. There is a huge difference between the two.”
What the petitioner asked for
The petitioner works as a bench clerk in the district judiciary and had earlier appeared in the 2023 judicial examination. Her plea was that her years of clerical work should count towards the one-year practice requirement for judicial service.
The Court observed that it was “attempting to facilitate opportunities for young candidates”, but said the practice requirement could not be waived.
One year, not three
The petition came against the backdrop of the practice requirement for entry into the judicial service, which the Supreme Court reduced from three years to one year in August 2026. She wanted her clerical service to count towards that one year.
The plea was rejected. A bench clerk’s job, a ministerial role in a court, was not accepted as a substitute for practice, whereas a law clerk’s experience continues to be treated as equivalent to practice.
Case Details: Tapasmita Sutar v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 1224/2026 | Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V. Mohana | Outcome: Petition dismissed.
Appearances: Not reported.