The Supreme Court today delivered its verdict on the question of whether the requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice should be reinstated as a qualifying condition for candidates aspiring to enter the judicial service at the level of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “We hold that the 3 years minimum practice requirement to appear for civil judges junior division exam is restored.”
The Court framed eight issues for consideration in the matter. On the first issue, the Court examined whether the 10 percent quota reserved for promotion to higher judicial services through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) ought to be restored to the originally recommended 25 percent. The Court held in the affirmative and directed, “quota be restored to 25 percent as per the earlier recommendation made in the 2022 judgment.”
The second issue concerned the eligibility criteria for appearing in the judicial service examination. The Court ruled that the minimum qualification shall include three years of legal service. Accordingly, the Court directed that the rules be amended to reflect this requirement.
In respect of issues three and four, relating to promotion for meritorious candidates in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre, the Court held that 10 percent of the posts shall be earmarked for promotion, thereby enabling accelerated career progression for deserving judicial officers.
Addressing issue six regarding the suitability test, the Court observed that no straightjacket formula could be laid down and that the relevant authority must consider a range of factors, including the candidate’s performance, knowledge, and aptitude.In regard to issue seven, whether the requirement of a minimum number of years of legal practice before appearing for the judicial service exam should be restored, the Court answered in the affirmative. The Bench noted that the earlier removal of the requirement had led to practical challenges. It emphasized the necessity of prior court exposure before assuming judicial office. Chief Justice Gavai stated, “The appointment of fresh law graduates has led to many problems, as seen from the affidavit of the High Courts. This is possible only when the candidate is exposed to working with the court. We are in agreement with the High Courts that a minimum number of years of practice is necessary.”
The Court clarified that the required three years of legal practice shall be calculated from the date of enrollment with the Bar Council, and not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). Noting the inconsistency in the scheduling of AIBE, the Bench held that enrollment date would offer a uniform benchmark. Additionally, a certification from the Principal District Judge shall be mandatory to validate the candidate’s practice. In case of practice before a High Court, the certificate must be endorsed by a senior advocate with a minimum of ten years of standing.
The Court also issued the following directions:
- All State Governments shall amend the service rules for Limited Departmental Competitive Exams to restore the 25 percent reservation quota.
- All High Courts and State Governments shall reserve 10 percent of the posts for accelerated promotions in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre.
- Where no rules exist for promotion to higher cadre, fresh rules shall be framed taking into account the candidate’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), judgments authored, and overall competence.
- Minimum three years of legal practice shall be mandated for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The candidate must obtain a certificate from the Principal District Judge or a senior advocate (in case of High Court practice).
- Mandatory training of one year shall be introduced for all new judicial appointees.
- The practice requirement shall not apply to recruitment processes already notified by High Courts.
Background
The issue traces back to the landmark judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India delivered in 1993, wherein the Supreme Court had emphasized the need for a minimum of three years of advocacy experience before entering the judiciary. This was later modified, and the requirement was removed based on recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which argued that the condition dissuaded bright young graduates from pursuing a judicial career.
Subsequently, the Court allowed fresh law graduates to appear for judicial service exams, provided they underwent structured judicial training. However, following practical difficulties highlighted by various High Courts, the issue was revisited by the Supreme Court in the present matter.
With today’s judgment, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of practical legal experience before assuming judicial office and has reinstated the practice requirement with clarity on its implementation.
Cause Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 1022/1989)