‘Revolutionary Judgment’: Sr Adv Pinky Anand Hails Supreme Court’s New Judicial Service Entry Rules

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand has described the Supreme Court’s latest decision on entry-level judicial recruitment as a “revolutionary judgment”, saying the revised framework gives law students a practical route towards joining the judiciary.

Speaking on the judgment, Anand said, “The Supreme Court has come out with a very revolutionary judgment by making the public employment dream of all the students come alive.” She said the decision provides a “way forward” by balancing practical experience with the aspirations of young law graduates seeking judgeship.

Against this backdrop, Anand welcomed the latest modification. “Public employment and judgeship is something that all students aspire for and we are trying to promote this as a nation,” she said.

Explaining the new structure, Anand said the Court had removed the immediate barrier created by the earlier requirement and replaced part of the experience requirement with supervised institutional exposure. “The second year, they become trainee judges and they have their trainee positions with engagement as salaries paid,” she said.

Anand said the transition arrangement was important because the matter had remained pending for a considerable period. “After 2027, that is the next year, when the position comes into being, again by this pragmatic solution that the Supreme Court has evolved, they have become eligible to become trainee judges in the first instance and therefore given complete light to their dreams and aspirations of the students,” she said.

Anand welcomed this review mechanism, saying it would allow the Court to determine whether further changes are needed.

“I think it is one way for going forward in this matter,” Anand said. She added that the Court’s decision to assess the system after five years was “admirable”.

For law graduates aspiring to judicial service, the judgment offers transitional relief while setting a new model: limited prior practice, followed by supervised training and clerkship before taking on judicial responsibilities.

Background

The Supreme Court on Friday modified its May 2025 decision on eligibility for direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division). While retaining the principle that prior exposure to legal practice is necessary before entering judicial service, it reduced the mandatory practice requirement from three years to one year. The Court also introduced a structured training and clerkship framework.

Under the new arrangement, candidates recruited through notifications after the transition period will need one year of actual practice before appearing for the judicial service examination. After selection, they will undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by one year of structured law clerkship. The clerkship will be divided equally between supervision by the Principal District Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service and a sitting judge of the concerned High Court.

The Court has also created a transition arrangement for recruitment notifications issued between May 20, 2025 and March 31, 2027. During this period, law graduates will be eligible to apply without completing the earlier three-year practice requirement. Selected candidates, however, will enter service initially as trainee judicial officers and must complete the prescribed training and clerkship.

The earlier three-year requirement had been restored by the Supreme Court in May 2025, when it held that courtroom experience was important for candidates entering the trial judiciary. The rule had triggered concerns among law graduates.

The earlier judgment had raised concerns about the gap faced by fresh law graduates who wished to enter judicial service immediately after law school. During the review proceedings, the Court also considered the need to balance practical courtroom experience with access to judicial careers. The revised scheme seeks to address that concern without abandoning the Court’s view that a prospective judge should have meaningful exposure to legal practice and judicial functioning before assuming office. independently.