Bench Clerkship Cannot Be Equated With One-Year Bar Practice For Civil Judge Post: SC

The Supreme Court has held that the mandatory requirement of one year of practice at the Bar for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) cannot be diluted to include experience gained as a bench clerk in the district judiciary.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the one-year practice requirement, as modified by the Court's judgment in Bhumika Trust Vs Union of India (2026), is strictly a requirement of practice at the Bar and does not include the period served as a law clerk or bench clerk in any court.

Why is one year of practice at the Bar mandatory before appearing for the Civil Judge exam?

Court explained that the earlier three-year practice requirement has now been staggered into three distinct components: one year of practice at the Bar before appearing for the examination, one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy after appointment, and one year of structured law clerkship thereafter.

"The requirement of minimum one year of practice is, therefore, an essential and independent component of the scheme. It is the only component that precedes the examination, and the only one through which a candidate experiences the working of courts from the side of the Bar," the Bench said.

Court further explained that treating other forms of experience, including law clerkship, at par with practice at the Bar was permitted only as a one-time measure during the transitional period specified in Bhumika Trust.

For recruitments notified on or after April 1, 2027, candidates will have to produce a certificate evidencing one year of "actual practice in the district courts". They will also have to undergo the prescribed training and law clerkship "notwithstanding their one year of prior practice", the Bench said.

Case background

Court dismissed a plea filed by Tapasmita Sutar, a bench clerk, who sought to have her years of service in the district judiciary counted towards the mandatory practice requirement for the Civil Judge examination.

The petitioner had sought a direction to the authorities to recognise her service in the district judiciary as fulfilling the minimum period of practice prescribed for eligibility to appear in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.

Sutar was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist on January 30, 2012 and was subsequently promoted as Bench Clerk Grade-III on August 14, 2019. While serving in the post, she completed her LLB degree in 2021.

The Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC), through an advertisement dated March 2, 2024, notified 34 vacancies for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Sutar applied and qualified in both the preliminary and main examinations. However, after the viva voce, her name did not figure in the final list of selected candidates.

Bench clerk and law clerk experience

Before the Court, Sutar conceded that a bench clerk is not legally equivalent to an advocate or a law clerk. However, she argued that her long service in the district judiciary involved assisting Presiding Judges and Judicial Officers in judicial and legal work and had therefore given her substantial practical experience.

She contended that the nature and substance of her duties should be examined rather than excluding her merely on the basis of the nomenclature of her post. She consequently sought an individualized determination of her eligibility.

The Bench, however, rejected the argument.

"While we fully endorse the reasons assigned by this Court vide Judgment dated 21.08.2026 in Bhumika Trust Vs Union of India and Ors and connected matters, we are satisfied that, at present, the petitioner does not meet the eligibility conditions laid down therein," the Bench said.

It reiterated that the one-year practice requirement is strictly a requirement of practice at the Bar and does not include the period served as a law clerk in any court.

Court also drew a distinction between law clerkship and service as a bench clerk in the district judiciary.

"A law clerk works closely with a Judge, undertaking comprehensive legal research, analysis of pending matters, and some drafting. It is this close association with the process of adjudication that led this court, in the judgment of May 20, 2025, to count experience as a law clerk towards the period of practice," the Bench said.

By contrast, it noted that while the duties of a bench clerk are indispensable to the functioning of a court, they are "more ministerial in nature" and do not involve the same degree of contact with judicial decision-making.

The Court also clarified that Sutar was not being excluded merely because of the designation of her post.

"We hasten to clarify that such is not the case. The distinction lies in the nature and substance of the duties discharged and, examined on that very touchstone, her service cannot be equated with that of a law clerk," the Bench held.

Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition, holding that Sutar's long service as a bench clerk cannot be counted towards the requirement of one year of practice. It further held that no occasion arose for an individualized determination of her eligibility.

Case Title: Tapasmita Sutar Vs Union of India & Ors

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana

Date of Judgment: October 06, 2026