In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice for candidates aspiring to join the judicial service as civil judges (junior division).

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih delivered the verdict this morning, stating,
"We hold that the three-year minimum practice requirement to appear for the civil judge (junior division) exam is restored."

The decision stems from a batch of petitions challenging the validity of a 2002 amendment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which introduced the requirement of three years' legal practice as a prerequisite for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service. The rule was later adopted by several other states.

The rationale behind the amendment was to ensure that newly appointed judges possess essential courtroom experience and a practical understanding of legal procedures. Supporters of the rule, including the Bar Council of India and various state bar councils, argued that prior practice at the Bar equips judges with the competence and maturity necessary to adjudicate effectively, thereby strengthening the judicial system.

However, the rule faced criticism from law graduates and legal scholars who claimed it created an unnecessary and exclusionary hurdle for fresh graduates. They argued that such a condition exceeded constitutional provisions and curtailed opportunities for young and capable candidates seeking a career in the judiciary.

The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which mandates that a person not already in government service must have at least seven years of advocacy experience to be eligible for appointment as a district judge. Petitioners argued that this provision does not extend to junior division civil judges, whose eligibility is governed by respective state judicial service rules.

While the Supreme Court, in its 2002 judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, emphasized the value of practical legal experience for judicial officers, it stopped short of mandating it uniformly across all states. Consequently, practices varied—some states implemented the three-year experience rule, while others continued to allow direct entry for law graduates.

With today’s ruling, the Supreme Court has effectively reinstated the three-year practice requirement, bringing uniformity to the eligibility criteria for civil judge recruitment in states that had previously done away with the rule.