The Supreme Court has modified its May 2025 decision on eligibility for entry-level judicial service, reducing the mandatory prior legal practice requirement from three years to one year.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran retained the principle that practical exposure to the legal profession is important for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division). However, the majority created a transitional arrangement for law graduates and introduced structured judicial training and clerkship as part of the overall experience requirement.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissented and declined to modify the earlier judgment.
The issue arose in review proceedings against the Supreme Court's May 20, 2025 decision restoring three years of practice as a condition for appearing in examinations for entry-level judicial service. The connected proceedings included Bhumika Trust v. Union of India. Court records show that the matter was heard by the Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justices Masih and Chandran before the verdict was reserved on July 28, 2026.
Background Of The Three-Year Practice Rule
In May 2025, the Supreme Court directed that candidates seeking direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division) should possess three years of practice at the Bar.
The decision was subsequently challenged through review petitions. The challengers raised concerns about the effect of the requirement on fresh law graduates and argued that candidates who had planned their careers under the earlier eligibility framework could face difficulty because of the sudden change.
The review proceedings also considered concerns relating to judicial training, candidates with disabilities and the practical difficulties associated with requiring young law graduates to spend three years in legal practice before entering the judiciary.
In January 2026, the Supreme Court had sought views from High Courts and law universities on the issue, noting that their suggestions would assist in taking a broader view of the eligibility condition.
Supreme Court Retains Need For Practical Legal Exposure
The majority did not reject the reasoning behind the earlier judgment that a prospective judicial officer should have some exposure to actual court functioning.
The Court, however, held that the experience requirement should have a reasonable connection with the objective sought to be achieved and should not operate harshly on candidates who had planned their careers under the previous rules.
The Court observed:
“We are convinced that the requirement of prior experience must also bear a reasonable nexus to the objective it seeks to achieve and that the sudden restoration of the requirement without any transition risks hardship upon law graduates who have planned their professional lives based on the regime that remained in force.”
The Court therefore modified the manner in which the experience requirement would operate instead of removing the requirement altogether.
No Prior Practice Required During Transition Period
For recruitment notifications issued from May 20, 2025 until March 31, 2027, law graduates will be permitted to apply without actually completing a period of legal practice.
For this limited transition period, candidates will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice and will not have to produce a practice certificate for that deemed period.
Selected candidates, however, will not immediately enter regular judicial service. They will first be appointed as Trainee Judicial Officers.
One Year Training And One Year Clerkship
Trainee Judicial Officers will undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy.
After successfully completing the training, they will undergo another year of structured clerkship. The first six months will be spent under the supervision of the Principal District Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service, while the remaining six months will be under a sitting High Court judge.
The Court directed:
“Candidates seeking to pursue the aforesaid recruitment shall, upon appointment, be designated as Trainee Judicial Officers. They shall undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy.”
The training and clerkship will together serve as the equivalent of the remaining two years of practical experience for candidates covered by the transition arrangement.
During training and clerkship, the trainees will receive emoluments equivalent to one-half of the gross remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class.
After completion of the clerkship, the supervising High Court judge will submit a reasoned evaluation of the trainee's progress and suitability. A satisfactory evaluation will lead to appointment against the regular judicial post with regular pay and service benefits.
One Year Practice Required From April 1, 2027
For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, candidates will have to possess at least one year of active legal practice before appearing for the judicial service examination.
The practice will have to be verified through a certificate of practice. The Court directed that such certification should be based on records showing the candidate's actual presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings.
Even after meeting this one-year practice requirement, selected candidates will have to undergo the prescribed one-year judicial academy training and one-year structured clerkship.
Justice Vinod Chandran Dissents
Justice K. Vinod Chandran disagreed with the majority's modification of the earlier ruling.
He recorded his dissent while maintaining that the review petitions should be dismissed and the May 2025 judgment should remain undisturbed.
Court Orders Five-Year Operation Of Scheme
The Supreme Court also directed that the new arrangement would operate for five years. The Court said its functioning could thereafter be assessed on the basis of factors including the quality of recruitment, training, clerkship and performance of officers appointed under the scheme.
The High Courts have also been directed to amend their judicial service rules in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions within three months.
The Court accordingly modified the earlier three-year practice requirement by introducing a one-year prior practice condition for future recruitment, while providing a transition period and mandatory institutional training and supervised clerkship for selected candidates.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1110/2025 and connected cases
Judge: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: August 21, 2026
-300x169.webp)
