Supreme Court: In a series of petitions challenging a mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for aspiring civil judges, introduced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a 2002 amendment to its judicial service rules, the three-judge bench of BR Gavai, CJI and AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, JJ. restored the requirement of a minimum of three years of practice at the Bar for candidates appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. It directed that all State Governments must amend their respective rules to incorporate this eligibility criterion. The three-year practice must be certified and endorsed by an advocate with at least ten years of standing at the Bar. Furthermore, experience as a law clerk to judges shall also be recognized as relevant legal experience for this purpose.
Additionally, the Court mandated that all entrants to the judicial service must undergo one year of training before presiding over court proceedings.
The Court clarified that the requirement of a minimum of three years’ legal practice for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination would operate prospectively and not affect ongoing recruitment processes. It held that the minimum practice requirement would not apply to appointments where High Courts had already initiated the selection process. The directive would be applicable only from the next cycle of recruitment.
The Court expressed concern over the direct appointment of fresh law graduates as judges, noting that such entrants often lack the necessary practical experience to effectively discharge judicial responsibilities. It observed that judicial officers are entrusted with matters involving life, liberty, and property, and such responsibilities demand more than academic knowledge, they require practical exposure, mentorship under experienced advocates, and familiarity with courtroom processes.
Agreeing with the need for prior legal practice, the Court endorsed the reintroduction of a service requirement as a precondition for appearing in the judicial service examination. It further clarified that the three-year period of legal practice would be counted from the date of provisional enrolment as an advocate, and not from the date of passing the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE), recognizing the varying schedules of the AIBE across jurisdictions.
To ensure authenticity, the Court directed that a candidate’s legal experience must be certified by an advocate having at least ten years of standing at the Bar. It also held that experience gained as a law clerk to a judge would be treated as valid legal practice for the purpose of eligibility.
Finally, the Court allowed all recruitment processes that had been stayed during the pendency of the case to now proceed, subject to the amended rules notified in compliance with the judgment.
Source: Press
