No Experience, No Exam? Supreme Court’s Call Puts Judge Selection on Hold

In a significant development, the High Courts of Gujarat and Karnataka have decided to suspend their ongoing Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment processes. This move comes in anticipation of a Supreme Court judgement regarding whether minimum years of legal practice should be a mandatory qualification for judicial candidates.

The matter is part of the long-standing All India Judges Association vs Union of India case. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was informed on March 18, 2025, that both High Courts have paused recruitment to await the Court’s final verdict. In response, the Court disposed of the related interlocutory applications, acknowledging the decision of both States to defer further action.

ASG Submissions and Court’s Observations

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the Union government, submitted that the Karnataka High Court had already issued a notification suspending its recruitment process, pending the Supreme Court’s verdict on the minimum practice condition. As for Gujarat, a similar stay was issued by the Supreme Court earlier, and the Gujarat High Court has complied by halting its recruitment as well.

The bench, taking note of these submissions, recorded:

“The learned ASG submits that the High Court of Karnataka has already put the selection process in abeyance in order to await the decision of this Court with regard to providing minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer as a pre-condition for appearing for the exam of Civil Judge (Junior Division)… In that view of the matter, nothing remains for consideration in the IAs.”

Background: The Controversy Around Practice Requirements

The controversy centers around whether fresh law graduates should be allowed to appear for Civil Judge exams, or if a minimum number of years of practice at the Bar should be mandatory. This requirement was removed in 2002, following a ruling in the same All India Judges Association case. However, recent discussions before the Supreme Court have revived the debate, with the Court hinting at reinstating the practice requirement to ensure quality and experience in the judiciary.

Gujarat’s Case: Supreme Court Stay

Notably, on March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the recruitment process for Judicial Magistrates First Class and Civil Judges in Gujarat. The Court criticised the Gujarat High Court for allowing recruitment based on an advertisement that did not require any legal practice, despite the pending decision before the top court.

The Supreme Court emphasised that recruitment for judicial posts should not proceed when the issue of eligibility criteria is under judicial consideration. The advertisement by Gujarat Public Service Commission dated January 30, 2025, did not specify any minimum years of practice as an advocate, raising concerns about the legality and fairness of the recruitment process.

Gauhati HC Decision Prompted SC Review

The issue gained momentum after concerns were raised in writ petitions filed before the Gauhati High Court, challenging recruitment processes that lacked a clear requirement of prior legal practice. These concerns prompted the Supreme Court to re-examine the need for professional experience in judicial appointments, especially in entry-level posts.

Significance: Ensuring Transparency and Fairness

The Supreme Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India, while recognising the importance of transparent and merit-based recruitment, has also stressed the need to maintain the integrity of the judiciary by ensuring that candidates possess practical legal experience. The apex court also observed that executive instructions used in the absence of recruitment rules often lead to avoidable litigation, calling for statutory rules to govern the process.

In its earlier observations, the Court stated:

“Drawing from our joint experience on the bench, we can say with some degree of conviction and authority that conducting recruitment processes in terms of executive orders and in the absence of statutorily prescribed standards, more often than not, invite avoidable litigation producing undesirable results.”

While the recruitment processes remain suspended, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming verdict is expected to clarify whether fresh law graduates can apply for Civil Judge posts or if practical legal experience should be reinstated as a mandatory qualification. The decision will have a nationwide impact, potentially reshaping judicial recruitment policy across States.