BREAKING | Supreme Court Bars Fresh Law Graduates from Judicial Service Without Practice Experience

In a landmark ruling impacting judiciary aspirants across the country, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated the mandatory requirement of three years of advocacy practice for applying to entry-level judicial posts, such as Civil Judge (Junior Division). However, this rule will not apply to recruitment processes already initiated by High Courts before the date of the judgement.

A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered the judgement in the All India Judges Association v Union of India case.

Key Takeaways from the All India Judges Association vs Union of India Judgement

• Minimum 3-Year Practice Rule Reinstated: Only candidates with a minimum of three years of practice as advocates can apply for Civil Judge posts. This period will be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment under the Advocates Act.
• Ongoing Recruitment Processes Exempted: The rule will not apply to judicial recruitment processes already advertised or commenced before May 20, 2025.
• Service Rules to Be Amended: All High Courts and State Governments have been directed to amend their service rules accordingly.
• Certification Required: Aspirants must submit a certificate from a Principal Judicial Officer or a senior advocate with at least 10 years’ standing to prove practice.
• Law Clerk Experience Counts: Time served as a law clerk with judges or judicial officers will also be considered towards fulfilling the 3-year practice requirement.

Rationale Behind the Decision

The Court stated that the earlier policy of allowing fresh law graduates to join judicial service had not yielded satisfactory results. Judges without prior court experience often struggled with issues relating to liberty, property, and complex litigation, which require practical understanding beyond academic knowledge.

“Bookish knowledge and pre-service training are not adequate substitutes for first-hand exposure to court functioning,” the Court observed.

The bench highlighted concerns raised by senior advocates, high courts, and various State Governments, most of whom supported reinstating the minimum practice condition. Only a few states—Rajasthan, Sikkim, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Nagaland, and Tripura—opposed it.

What Happens Next?

• Recruitments that were on hold can now resume, especially those that were paused awaiting this verdict.
• The 3-year rule will be enforced only in future notifications for judicial vacancies, not those already issued.
• All High Courts and State Judicial Service Commissions are expected to begin amending recruitment rules immediately.

Background: Why Was the Rule Removed Earlier?

In its 2002 ruling, the Supreme Court had set aside the 3-year practice requirement based on the Shetty Commission’s recommendation, arguing that it discouraged young talent from entering judicial services.

However, experience over the last two decades prompted a re-evaluation, leading to today’s decision.

“Over the past 20 years, this policy has led to problems. The judiciary needs individuals familiar with the court ecosystem,” the Court stated.

Case Summary

• Case Title: All India Judges Association vs Union of India
• Issue: Minimum practice and LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Exam) quota
• Verdict Date: May 20, 2025
• Bench: Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, Justice K Vinod Chandran