The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver its verdict on the crucial issue of reinstating a minimum practice requirement for entry into the judicial service. The decision, expected tomorrow, will clarify whether only lawyers with at least three years of practice can apply for entry-level posts such as Munsiff or Magistrate.
A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, along with Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, will pronounce the judgment in the All India Judges Association case. This matter revisits an earlier stance that allowed fresh law graduates to apply for judicial service, a change introduced by the Supreme Court in 2002.
Read Also: High Courts Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Using Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court
Originally, most States mandated a minimum of three years’ legal practice as a condition for eligibility. However, in its 2002 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down this requirement. The Court accepted the Shetty Commission’s recommendation which argued that the rule was discouraging talented law graduates from joining the judicial service.
“We accept the recommendation of the Shetty Commission... It should no longer be mandatory for an applicant to have three years of practice. Fresh graduates should be allowed to compete and enter judicial service,” the Court stated in 2002.
Despite this relaxation, fresh petitions were later filed seeking to restore the old rule. Many High Courts supported this move, expressing concern that practical courtroom experience is crucial for new judges.
Read Also: Supreme Court Forms SIT to Probe BJP Minister Vijay Shah’s Remarks Against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi
Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, echoed these concerns, stressing that practical legal experience cannot be substituted. The bench also discussed doubts over the effectiveness of such mandatory practice, noting that some candidates might engage in symbolic legal work just to meet the criteria.
“Aspirants might simply sign vakalaths with others without gaining real experience,” the bench observed during the hearings.
Most High Courts and State governments favor reinstating the requirement, stating that the entry of fresh law graduates has proven to be “counter-productive” to the quality and efficiency of the judiciary. Only the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh disagreed, saying the practice condition need not be brought back.
Read Also:Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Challenging AIBE Fee Structure by Bar Council of India
On January 28, 2025, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the matter and paused the Gujarat High Court’s recruitment drive that did not include the practice requirement.
The upcoming verdict is expected to impact future recruitment policies across the country and shape the pathway for aspiring judicial officers.
