The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea seeking recognition of experience as a district judiciary bench clerk as equivalent to law clerk experience for meeting the practice requirement for judicial service examinations.
The decision in Tapasmita Sutar v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1224/2026, delivered on October 6, 2026, draws a distinction between the functions performed by bench clerks and law clerks. The Court held that the two roles cannot be treated alike merely because both involve working within the court system.
Background
The petitioner, a bench clerk in the district judiciary, sought to have her service experience counted towards the legal-practice requirement for entry into judicial service. Her plea came after the Supreme Court modified the earlier three-year practice requirement in August 2026.
Under the revised framework, candidates for recruitments notified from April 1, 2027 will require at least one year of actual practice. The August ruling also recognised specified law clerk experience as equivalent to practice in the prescribed circumstances.
The petitioner sought similar treatment for her experience as a bench clerk.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana rejected the proposed equivalence.
Justice Bagchi explained that the recognition given to law clerks was based on the nature of their work and could not automatically be extended to other court staff.
“There is a clear rational nexus in a law clerk’s experience being utilised as equivalent to practice, which cannot be conflated and extended to other ministerial staff assisting a court.”
The Bench further distinguished the responsibilities of a bench clerk from those of a law clerk. Justice Mohana told the petitioner:
“You want to continue as a bench clerk and then want that to be counted as practice in a court of law. There is a huge difference between the two.”
Justice Bagchi also described the distinction between the two categories as reasonable, observing that law clerks have a unique role and cannot be equated with bench clerks.
The Court ultimately declined to extend the equivalence available to law clerks to bench clerks. It held that accommodating the petitioner on that basis would require treating the two positions as equivalent, which the Bench was not prepared to do.
The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
