In a significant ruling impacting judicial appointments across the country, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the requirement that candidates must have at least three years of legal practice before they can appear for civil judge (junior division) examinations.
The verdict was delivered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, who stated:
“We hold that the three-year minimum practice requirement to appear for civil judges junior division exam is restored.”
Background
The case stemmed from multiple petitions challenging a rule introduced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a 2002 amendment to its judicial service rules. This amendment mandated that candidates must possess a minimum of three years’ experience as a practicing advocate to be eligible for judicial service examinations. Over time, this practice-based eligibility norm was adopted by several other states.
The primary rationale behind the rule was to ensure that entrants into the judiciary possessed essential courtroom experience and practical legal skills. The Bar Council of India and various state bar councils supported the rule, emphasizing that trial experience enables judges to better comprehend procedural complexities and deliver informed judgments, thereby safeguarding the judiciary’s credibility.
The Opposition
However, the rule faced stiff resistance from fresh law graduates and academicians. Petitioners argued that the three-year requirement amounted to an “arbitrary barrier” that violated principles of equal opportunity. They contended that the rule had a chilling effect on young aspirants and exceeded constitutional mandates by imposing unnecessary limitations on access to judicial careers.
The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which pertains to the eligibility of candidates for appointment as district judges. This Article mandates seven years of legal practice for appointment to district judiciary but is silent on qualifications for junior division civil judges. Consequently, state judicial service rules have evolved differently—some mandating prior experience, while others allow fresh graduates to appear directly.
Court’s Consideration
The Supreme Court revisited its earlier observations made in the landmark 2002 case All India Judges Association v. Union of India, wherein the Court had underlined the importance of practical experience but had not imposed it as a binding norm. The present ruling, however, restores and reinforces the experiential prerequisite for entry-level judicial posts.
By upholding the rule, the Court signaled its alignment with the view that real-world advocacy experience forms an essential foundation for judicial competence at even the entry levels.
