SC cuts legal practice requirement for judicial service to one year

New regime takes effect from April 1, 2027; selected candidates will undergo one year of intensive training followed by a year-long structured clerkship

The Supreme Court on Friday retained the requirement of prior legal practice for entry into the lower judiciary but reduced the experience required before applying for the judicial service examination from three years to one year.

  The new regime will come into force from April 1, 2027, with a transition period for candidates applying before that date.

 

Under the new framework, candidates selected for judicial service will first be designated as Trainee Judicial Officers. They will undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy, followed by a year-long structured clerkship. The first six months of the clerkship will be under the Principal District Judge or members of the Higher Judicial Service, while the remaining six months will be spent under sitting judges of the concerned High Court.

 

The Supreme Court has treated this two-year training and clerkship period as equivalent to two years of legal practice. This effectively offsets the reduction in the pre-recruitment practice requirement from three years to one year.

 

Transition period

  The court has allowed all law graduates applying for judicial service examinations up to March 31, 2027, to do so without any prior practice experience. They will be deemed to have completed one year of active legal practice and will not be required to furnish a practice certificate for that period.

 

However, candidates selected during this transition period will still have to complete the prescribed training and clerkship. During the one-year academy training, they will receive emoluments equivalent to half the gross remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class. They will receive the same emoluments during the subsequent year-long clerkship.

  After completion of the clerkship, the High Court judge under whose supervision the trainee worked will submit a reasoned assessment of the candidate's progress and suitability. A satisfactory evaluation will lead to appointment to the regular judicial post, along with the applicable pay scale and service benefits.

 

For candidates applying from April 1, 2027, one year of active legal practice will be mandatory before appearing for the examination. The practice will have to be established through a certificate issued under the mechanism prescribed by the Supreme Court, with records showing the candidate's presence and participation in effective court proceedings.

 

These candidates will also have to undergo the same two-year training and clerkship after selection.

 

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran directed High Courts to amend their judicial service rules within three months. The new framework will operate for five years, following which the Supreme Court will review its functioning and impact.

 

Dissent

  Justice K Vinod Chandran dissented and favoured retaining the May 2025 judgment in its entirety. That ruling had made three years of legal practice a mandatory eligibility condition for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination and directed High Courts and state governments to incorporate the requirement in their service rules.

 

The May 2025 judgment had provided that the three-year practice requirement would operate prospectively and would not affect recruitment processes that had already begun. It also held that the period of practice would be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment and directed successful candidates to undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.

 

The review petitions challenged the introduction of prior practice as a condition for entry into the judiciary. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, in one of the petitions, relied on Law Commission reports between 1924 and 1986 that had opposed making prior Bar practice mandatory for entry into the judicial service. The plea also referred to the Second Judicial Pay Commission's 2022 report, which recommended wider consultation before introducing such a requirement.

 

The petitions questioned whether sufficient consideration had been given to the training already provided by State Judicial Academies. They also raised concerns over the potential impact of the practice requirement on economically weaker and socially disadvantaged candidates.

 

Another review petition argued that the three-year practice condition could violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment. It also contended that recent law graduates who had prepared for judicial examinations under the earlier eligibility regime could be unfairly affected.

 

The Supreme Court had earlier agreed to hear the review petitions in open court. The revised framework now seeks to combine a shorter pre-entry practice requirement with extensive post-selection training and supervised courtroom experience.