Today, On 20th May, the Supreme Court mandated the rule that candidates must have at least three years of advocate practice to qualify for entry-level judicial service positions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday mandated the rule that candidates must have at least three years of practice as an advocate before applying for entry-level judicial posts.
The Court clarified that this period of legal practice will be counted from the date of provisional enrollment as an advocate.
However, this requirement will not affect any recruitment processes that have already
The Court stated,
“We hold that the three-year minimum practice requirement to appear for the civil judges (junior division) exam is restored,”
However, the Court clarified that this requirement will not pertain to current judicial recruitment.
The Court added,
“The minimum practice requirement shall not be applicable where the High Courts have already commenced the appointment process of civil judges (junior division) and this shall be applicable only when the next appointment process begins,”
The case originated from a series of petitions challenging the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for prospective civil judges, which was introduced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a 2002 amendment to its judicial service rules.
This rule, later adopted by several other states, mandated that candidates possess a minimum of three years of experience as practicing lawyers before being eligible to sit for judicial service examinations for entry-level civil judge (junior division) positions.
The rule was established to ensure that those appointed to the judiciary had a solid understanding of courtroom procedures and practical legal skills.
Also Read: “Being Appointed as An Advocate Commissioner is an Honor”: Kerala High Court Stated
Supporters, including the Bar Council of India and various state bar councils, argued that prior practice at the Bar provided judges with the necessary experience to effectively address complex legal issues, thus improving the quality of judgments and preserving the integrity of the judiciary.
However, the rule encountered significant opposition from law graduates and academics, who contended that it created an arbitrary barrier to judicial service, limiting equal opportunities for new law graduates.
They argued that the requirement exceeded constitutional mandates and disproportionately restricted access to the judiciary, discouraging talented young candidates from pursuing judicial careers.
The legal discussion primarily focused on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which states that a person not already in the service of the Union or the State can be appointed as a district judge only if they have practiced as an advocate or pleader for a minimum of seven years.
Also Read: Supreme Court: Balancing Qualification and Experience| MP Judicial Service
However, this provision applies specifically to district judges and does not necessarily pertain to junior division civil judges, whose eligibility is usually governed by state judicial service rules.
In the 2002 case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of practical experience for judges but did not mandate it as a requirement.
Since then, judicial service rules have varied significantly across states some enforcing the three-year minimum practice requirement, while others have continued to allow direct recruitment from law schools.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 1022/1989)
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
