BREAKING: Supreme Court Reduces 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service To 1 Year

In a significant verdict on judicial services, the Supreme Court while upholding its ruling mandating law practice as a condition for entry into judicial service, has reduced the experience prescribed at the bar from 3 years to 1 year.

As an additional rider, the CJI Surya Kant led bench has ordered that the candidates who succeed at the judicial service exam will have to undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy followed by six months’ clerkship under the District Judge/Higher Judicial Service and six months under a sitting High Court judge.

Court has also granted a key exemption with regard to a transition period running up to March 31, 2027.

"The direction is that all law graduates will be eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement, having regard to the fact that more than one year has elapsed since the judgment under review was pronounced. Such candidates, for the purposes of their applications, will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice and shall not be required to produce a certificate of practice in respect of the said period," the Court said.

The Supreme Court had recently heard review petitions challenging its judgment mandating a minimum of three years’ legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into judicial service in open court.

Court had pointed out that the three-year practice condition creates a vacuum period for young graduates, potentially deterring meritorious candidates from considering judicial service as a career option immediately after completing law school.

“There is no doubt that practice is important,” the CJI said, “but we also have to see the impact on young talent. How do we introduce it in such a manner that it does not deprive us of meritorious candidates? Today, a fresh pass-out is not eligible.” Expressing concern over the social realities faced by women candidates, the CJI observed that the condition may disproportionately affect aspiring female judicial officers. “Girls are really shaken. Girls are the potential of our merit,” he said, adding that there is apprehension that many may not be able to complete the required years of practice due to familial and societal pressures, including marriage and relocation.

The review challenged the Court’s May 2025 judgment restoring the requirement of a minimum three years’ practice as an advocate for eligibility to entry-level judicial posts. The ruling revived a pre-2002 position, holding that prior courtroom experience was essential to ensure competence and maturity among trial court judges.

One of the review petitions, contended that the judgment overlooked key observations of the Shetty Commission, which had recommended removal of the mandatory practice requirement. The petitioner argues that law degree curricula already include court visits and internships, and that judicial officers undergo structured training before assuming office, making the three-year litigation mandate unnecessary.

The petition underscored that the Supreme Court disregarded key recommendations made by the Shetty Commission in 1999 and previously upheld in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, which advocated for extensive training for young graduates instead of a rigid practice requirement. The petition highlights a lack of empirical data or objective criteria to show that advocates with less than 3 years of practice perform poorly as judges. It points to the success of many young judges who were appointed without extensive practice at the Bar and underscores the principle of reasonable classification under State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), arguing there is no rational basis to treat fresh graduates differently from those with 3 years’ practice.

Case Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran

Judgment Date: August 21, 2026