Supreme Court Cuts Mandatory Practice for Entry-Level Judicial Service From 3 Years to 1

The Supreme Court has reduced the mandatory practice requirement for law graduates applying for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) from three years to one year, while reaffirming that prior practice at the Bar is necessary before entering judicial service.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran, by a majority view, also waived the practice requirement for candidates during the transition period from May 20, 2025, when the Court had originally mandated three years of practice, to March 31, 2027.

How much practice will law graduates now need to apply for Civil Judge?

Candidates will need at least one year of actual practice at the Bar for recruitment notifications or advertisements issued on or after April 1, 2027.

The majority judgment, authored by the CJI, said that all law graduates would be eligible to apply during the transition period, notwithstanding the earlier three-year practice requirement. Since more than one year had passed since the May 20, 2025 judgment, such candidates would be deemed to have completed one year of active practice for the purpose of their applications.

Court clarified that candidates selected during this period would, after appointment, be designated as “Trainee Judicial Officers” and undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy.

“This period shall be treated as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for the purposes of the three-year requirement,” the Bench said.

What training will Civil Judge recruits undergo?

The Trainee Judicial Officers will undergo a further one year of structured Law Clerkship.

The first six months will be under the supervision of Principal District/District and Sessions Judges or Members of the Higher Judicial Services. The remaining six months will be under the supervision of a sitting Judge of the concerned high court.

After the transition period, candidates applying pursuant to recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, will have to possess at least one year of actual practice before appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.

Even these candidates will undergo the same one-year intensive training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by six months of Law Clerkship under the Principal District/District and Sessions Judges or Members of the Higher Judicial Services, and another six months under a sitting Judge of the concerned high court.

Court directed State Governments, in consultation with the respective high courts, to make and notify the necessary amendments to the applicable Rules forthwith and, in any event, within three months from the date of the judgment.

Why did the Supreme Court retain the practice requirement?

The majority held that there was considerable merit in the view that a person entering judicial office should not be wholly unfamiliar with the functioning of courts and the practical consequences of judicial orders.

Such exposure, it said, could contribute to the development of judicial temperament, patience, empathy, courtroom discipline and an appreciation of the respective roles of the Bench and the Bar.

Court, however, said the new arrangement would not be immutable and could be reconsidered after five years based on material relating to the quality of recruitment, performance of trainees, adequacy of training and other relevant indicators.

“Judicial recruitment is an evolving process,” the Bench said, adding that three years would provide sufficient institutional experience to assess whether the combination of limited prior practice, structured training and supervised clerkship was achieving the desired objective.

Court modified its earlier judgment after hearing counsel appearing for the parties, State Governments, high courts, National Law Universities and amicus curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar.

Justice K Vinod Chandran dissents

Justice K Vinod Chandran disagreed with the majority and dismissed the review petitions.

“I am unable to persuade myself that a review of the well-considered, well thought out decision of a three-judge bench, prescribing a three-year ‘practice’ at the Bar, before embarking on a judicial career, is imperative,” he said.

Justice Chandran pointed out that the earlier decision had been based on the views of a vast majority of high courts and States, which had considered the functioning of the judicial system and the inputs received from it.

“Even today, the high courts, a vast majority of them have opined that experience at the Bar is imperative before stepping on to a judicial career,” he said.

The judge said judicial quality could not be achieved through academic excellence alone or assessed merely on the basis of the source from which recruitment was made.

“The forensic and analytical skills of an adjudicator are better learnt in the profession by observing what happens in the courts,” he said, adding that the courtroom was “the most profound of all classrooms".

Justice Chandran also noted that a mistake by a presiding officer could put a litigant at risk, with the remedy generally available through an appeal. A lawyer’s mistake, on the other hand, could be remedied by an experienced presiding officer, senior lawyer, colleague or court staff with first-hand experience of proceedings.

“The requirement of experience is the need of the hour and essential in the immediate future,” he said, warning that otherwise the system could end up creating “a cadre of careerists rather than of jurists capable of enriching a robust system.”

Case Title: Bhumika Trust Vs Union of India & Ors

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: August 21, 2026