In a key decision on May 20, the Supreme Court reinstated the rule requiring a minimum of three years of legal practice to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). However, there wasn't a unified opinion among various High Courts and State Governments on this eligibility condition.

"There is a lack of uniformity in terms of the standard adopted for the minimum condition of practice," submitted Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar during the hearing. He referred to the affidavits submitted by several High Courts and State Governments to underline the inconsistency.

Read Also: Supreme Court: Law Clerk Experience To Be Counted For 3-Year Practice Requirement In Judicial Service Entry

Most High Courts and States supported the reintroduction of a 3-year minimum practice requirement. However, some opposed it completely. The Governments of Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Nagaland, and Tripura were against this condition. Similarly, the High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim also did not support the mandatory practice rule.

Interestingly, some High Courts and their respective States held different views. For example:

• Chhattisgarh High Court supported the 3-year practice condition, while the Chhattisgarh Government opposed it.
• Punjab & Haryana High Court supported the rule, but the Haryana Government did not.

Read Also: Supreme Court Orders Uniform Pay and Allowances for Consumer Commission Members Across India

Additionally, the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court of Calcutta were in favor of prior legal practice but did not mention any specific duration.

The bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, along with Justice A.G. Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, ruled:

"The period of practice shall be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment."

However, the Court also clarified that this rule will not apply to recruitment processes that have already begun.

Read Also: Minimum Practice Condition Will Not Apply to Ongoing Judiciary Recruitment Already Notified by High Courts: Supreme Court

It is important to note that the 3-year minimum practice condition was earlier removed in the Third All India Judges Association case (2002). This latest ruling brings it back into effect, aiming to ensure more experienced individuals join the judicial services.

Case : All India Judges Association vs Union of India (Minimum Practice & LDCE issue)