On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment reinstating the requirement of minimum legal practice for entry into the judicial service. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran ruled that candidates must have a minimum of three years of legal practice to be eligible for entry-level judicial positions, such as Civil Judge (Junior Division).

This decision overturns the Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling, which had removed the practice requirement, allowing fresh law graduates to apply directly for judicial posts. The Court emphasized that practical courtroom experience is essential for the effective functioning of judicial officers. It noted concerns that some candidates were merely signing vakalats without engaging in substantive legal practice.

The judgment mandates that the period of legal practice can be counted from the date of provisional enrollment. To prove this experience, candidates must provide a certificate from an advocate with at least ten years of standing, endorsed by a judicial officer. For those practicing at the Supreme Court or High Court, the certificate must be attested by an advocate with the same standing and endorsed by a designated officer of the respective Court.

The Court’s decision came after multiple petitions and support from several High Courts and State Governments, which argued that the absence of a practice requirement was counterproductive and hampered the efficiency of the lower judiciary. Only the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh opposed the restoration of the three-year rule.

As a result of this ruling, all High Courts and State Governments are directed to amend their judicial service rules to reinstate the minimum practice requirement. The decision is expected to significantly impact upcoming judicial recruitments across India and reshape eligibility criteria going forward.

Sources