The Supreme Court on Friday modified its May 2025 ruling on eligibility for entry-level judicial service, reducing the mandatory practice requirement for law graduates from three years to one year while retaining prior experience at the Bar as a condition for recruitment.
By a 2:1 majority, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran introduced a revised framework under which the remaining two years of practical exposure will be fulfilled after selection through judicial academy training and structured clerkship.
Justice Chandran dissented and favoured retaining the May 2025 judgment in its entirety.
The revised requirement of one year of active legal practice before applying will take effect from April 1, 2027. Candidates applying for judicial service recruitment up to March 31, 2027 will not be required to show any prior practice at the Bar.
For the transition period, such candidates will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice for eligibility purposes and will not have to produce a certificate of practice.
Two-Year Training and Clerkship After Selection
Candidates selected under the revised framework will initially be designated as Trainee Judicial Officers rather than being immediately placed in regular judicial posts.
They will first undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy. The Court has treated this period as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar.
After completing academy training, the trainee officers will undergo another year of structured law clerkship. For the first six months, they will work under the supervision of the Principal District Judge or members of the Higher Judicial Service. The remaining six months will be spent under the supervision of sitting judges of the concerned High Court.
This one-year clerkship will also count as one year of Bar practice, thereby completing the practical-experience component contemplated under the three-year framework.
Candidates applying during the transition period will therefore be treated as having one year of practice for eligibility, while their subsequent academy training and clerkship will account for the other two years.
Half of Judicial Magistrate’s Gross Remuneration During Training
During both the judicial academy training and clerkship, Trainee Judicial Officers will receive an emolument equivalent to half of the gross remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class.
At the end of the clerkship, the sitting High Court judge under whose supervision the trainee has served will submit a reasoned evaluation report on the officer’s progress and suitability.
A satisfactory evaluation will pave the way for appointment to a regular judicial post, following which the officer will become entitled to the regular pay scale and other service benefits attached to the post.
One-Year Bar Practice Mandatory From April 2027
Law graduates applying on or after April 1, 2027 will have to establish at least one year of active legal practice before becoming eligible to apply for judicial service.
They will additionally have to complete the same one-year judicial academy training and one-year structured clerkship after selection.
The required legal practice will have to be verified through a certificate of practice. Such a certificate cannot be issued unless the candidate’s presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings have been duly recorded in accordance with the mechanism prescribed by the Supreme Court.
The Court has directed High Courts to amend the relevant judicial service rules within three months to implement the revised framework.
The new arrangement will operate for five years, after which the Supreme Court will review its functioning.
May 2025 Judgment and Review Petitions
The ruling came on a batch of review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment which had prescribed at least three years of practice as an advocate for candidates seeking to appear in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
That judgment had made the requirement prospective and clarified that recruitment processes already initiated before the ruling would remain unaffected. It had also directed that the period of practice be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment and required successful candidates to undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.
The May 2025 judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran. The Court had directed High Courts and State governments to amend their service rules accordingly.
Several review petitions subsequently challenged the three-year condition. The Supreme Court issued notice on the pleas and permitted them to be heard in open court.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, in his review petition, relied on Law Commission reports issued between 1924 and 1986 which opposed mandatory prior Bar practice for entry into the judiciary. His plea also referred to the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report of 2022, which recommended that such an eligibility condition should be introduced only after a wider consultative process.
The petition further questioned whether sufficient consideration had been given to the training already provided by State Judicial Academies before imposing the practice requirement.
Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav also challenged the rule, contending that it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. His petition sought deferred implementation, arguing that recent law graduates who had prepared for judicial service examinations under the earlier eligibility regime should not be excluded.
The plea also raised concerns over the impact of the requirement on candidates from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities and questioned whether sufficient objective data existed to justify a mandatory three-year practice condition.
