Currently Empty: ₹0.00
For years, law graduates in India could aspire to become civil judges immediately after completing their legal education. However, this changed on 20 May 2025, when the Supreme Court restored the mandatory three-year practice requirement for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).[1] The decision has significant implications for law students and young graduates, who must now plan their careers with courtroom experience in mind.
[1] All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 735, judgement dated 20 May 2025
THE 2002 BACKGROUP
To understand this development, it is important to revisit the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India. At that time, the Court removed the requirement of prior legal practice for candidates appearing in judicial services examinations. The objective was to allow talented law graduates to enter judicial service without waiting several years. It was also believed that structured training after recruitment could make up for their lack of practical experience.
Following this decision, several states modified their recruitment rules, allowing fresh law graduates to apply directly for civil judge positions.
WHY WAS THE REQUIREMENT RESTRORED?
Over the next two decades, concerns emerged regarding the practical preparedness of newly appointed judges. High Courts and state governments highlighted difficulties faced by candidates who had limited exposure to courtroom proceedings, procedural requirements and the practical application of evidence.
When the issue returned to the Supreme Court, the central question was whether the three-year practice requirement should be reinstated and, if so, under what conditions. The Court invited responses from High Courts and state governments before reaching its decision.
On 20 May 2025, a Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices A.G. Masih and K.V. Chandran held that appointing fresh law graduates directly to the judiciary had created practical difficulties because of their limited professional exposure. Consequently, the Court restored the requirement of at least three years of legal practice for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). Experience as a law clerk to a judge is also recognised under the Court’s directions, subject to the applicable conditions.
MADHYA PRADESH: A CASE STUDY
Madhya Pradesh provides an example of how the practice requirement became a subject of litigation even before the Supreme Court’s final decision.
On 23 June 2023, the state amended its Judicial Services Rules, making three years of legal practice compulsory for civil judge aspirants. The amendment also prescribed at least six court appearances during this period. However, candidates with 70% or more CGPA in law school and no failed subjects were exempted from the practice requirement.[1]
The amendment was challenged before the courts. Some petitioners initially received provisional relief, allowing them to submit applications without missing the deadline while their challenges remained pending. A separate Public Interest Litigation challenging the requirement was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court, which also imposed costs that were later waived.
In September 2025, the Supreme Court also set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order directing a re-examination process. The Court considered a fresh round of testing impractical and likely to generate further litigation.
THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT: ONE YEAR OF PRACTICE AND TWO YEAR OF TRAINING
The debate over the three-year practice requirement took another turn in August 2026, when the Supreme Court reportedly modified its earlier directions concerning recruitment to entry-level judicial posts. According to reports published on 21 August 2026, the mandatory period of legal practice was reduced from three years to one year. The change was accompanied by a two-year training arrangement for selected candidates.
Under the reported framework, candidates would need at least one year of legal practice before applying for entry-level judicial service. Those selected would then undergo two years of structured preparation, comprising judicial academy training and a clerkship designed to provide practical exposure to judicial work.
This development changes the approach adopted in the May 2025 judgment. Instead of requiring candidates to complete three years of practice before entering the recruitment process, the revised arrangement places greater emphasis on combining professional experience with training after selection.
The broader question remains how judicial training and courtroom experience should be balanced. The reported change reflects a shift in that balance, while retaining the objective of preparing candidates for the responsibilities of the subordinate judiciary.
WHAT IT MEANS FOR ASPIRING JUDGES?
For law students and recent graduates, the reported change offers a different route into the subordinate judiciary. Instead of completing three years of legal practice before applying, candidates would be required to gain one year of practice, followed by two years of structured training after selection.
This means aspiring judicial officers can plan their careers around both courtroom experience and post-selection preparation. The initial year of practice provides an opportunity to understand court proceedings, while the subsequent training is intended to prepare selected candidates for judicial responsibilities.
However, candidates should carefully check the latest recruitment notifications and applicable state rules to understand the precise eligibility conditions, the recognition of legal experience and the implementation of the revised training framework.
The development highlights an evolving approach to judicial recruitment: combining practical legal experience with structured training rather than relying exclusively on years spent in practice before appointment. For aspiring judges, staying updated on the operative Supreme Court directions and state-specific rules is now particularly important.