Supreme Court Mandates Minimum Three Years of Practice for Judicial Service: A Landmark Step Towards a More Competent Judiciary

In a momentous ruling that could redefine the quality and credibility of the lower judiciary across India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India (2024) has mandated a minimum of three years’ practice at the Bar for eligibility to appear in judicial service examinations for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

The Bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered this landmark judgment, bringing a long-standing debate to a decisive conclusion.

Background of the Case

This ruling stems from the challenges to a rule originally introduced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2002, requiring judicial service aspirants to have at least three years of practical legal experience before taking the exam for Civil Judge (Junior Division). The rule was gradually adopted by other States, sparking opposition from law graduates and academic communities who argued it was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

At the center of the constitutional debate was Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which mandates seven years of advocacy for appointment as a District Judge, but is silent on similar requirements for Civil Judges (Junior Division). This ambiguity allowed different States to adopt varying eligibility rules.

Key Directions of the Supreme Court

1. Three-Year Practice as a Prerequisite

The Court held that:

“Candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible.”

This direction is to be implemented prospectively, not affecting ongoing recruitment processes. High Courts are directed to amend their judicial service rules within three months, and State Governments must approve these amendments within a further three months .

2. Clarification on the Start of Practice

The Court acknowledged the varying schedules of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and ruled that:

“Experience shall be counted from the date of provisional enrollment with the State Bar Council and not from the date of passing AIBE.”

3. Who Can Certify the Experience?

The judgment outlines a clear certification protocol:

• For district-level practice: By a principal judicial officer or an advocate with 10 years’ standing, endorsed by the principal judicial officer.
• For High Court/Supreme Court practice: By a senior advocate (10 years’ experience), endorsed by an officer designated by the respective court.

4. Law Clerks’ Experience Recognized

Another important inclusion was that experience as a judicial law clerk shall be counted towards the three-year practice requirement.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The apex court firmly held that allowing fresh law graduates into the judiciary without any court experience leads to several issues:

(i) Lack of Practical Exposure

“Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can substitute for firsthand courtroom experience.”

The Court emphasized that from the very first day on the bench, judges deal with matters affecting life, liberty, property, and reputation. Without adequate exposure to courtrooms, such responsibilities could overwhelm fresh graduates.

(ii) Behavioural and Temperamental Issues

The Bench noted that judicial officers appointed straight from law school often display temperamental and behavioural challenges due to their lack of exposure to professional decorum and litigation realities.

(iii) Judicial Dignity and Public Trust

Experience at the Bar not only enhances the quality of judgments but also strengthens public trust in the judiciary. The Court noted that practical legal training improves a judge’s capacity to handle procedural intricacies and uphold justice effectively.

Mandatory One-Year Training Before Posting

In an effort to further professionalize the judiciary, the Supreme Court mandated:

“All newly appointed Civil Judges (Junior Division) must undergo at least one year of training before presiding over any court.”

This move is expected to bolster the practical readiness of judicial officers and reduce errors stemming from inexperience.

Implications for Law Graduates and Aspirants

This judgment transforms the pathway to judicial service. Aspiring candidates now need to:

• Enroll with a State Bar Council immediately after graduation,
• Gain three years of solid legal practice or relevant experience,
• Obtain appropriate certification, and
• Undergo a mandatory year-long judicial training upon selection.

This may delay the entry of law graduates into the judiciary but ensures a stronger, better-equipped first-level judiciary, which plays a pivotal role in the justice delivery system.

Conclusion

This landmark decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court aligns judicial service with professional rigor. It strikes a careful balance between opportunity and preparedness, sending a clear message: judicial office is not merely a career option but a solemn constitutional responsibility.

The mandate of three years’ legal practice, along with structured training, is a welcome reform that promises to enhance the quality of adjudication in the lower judiciary, restore public faith, and strengthen the foundation of justice in India.