New Delhi: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has reinstated the requirement of a minimum three years of legal practice for candidates aspiring to join the judicial services as Civil Judge (Junior Division). The decision marks a reversal of earlier relaxations, following concerns raised by multiple High Courts over the lack of practical courtroom exposure among fresh law graduates.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled: “We hold that the 3-year minimum practice requirement to appear for Civil Judges (Junior Division) exam is restored.”
The Court also ordered the amendment of service rules to reflect this eligibility criterion, directing that the three-year period shall be calculated from the date of enrollment with the Bar Council—not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). A certificate of practice from the Principal District Judge or, in the case of High Court practice, endorsement from a senior advocate with over ten years of experience will be mandatory.
Other Key Directions from the Judgment:
- 25% Quota Restored for LDCE Promotions: The Court restored the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) promotion quota from 10% to 25%, aligning with its 2022 recommendations.
- 10% Posts for Fast-Track Promotions: For meritorious Civil Judges (Junior Division), 10% of posts will be reserved for accelerated promotions.
- Uniform Rules for Higher Judicial Promotions: Where no such rules exist, State Governments must frame fresh rules considering ACRs, judicial output, and competence.
- Mandatory One-Year Training: All new judicial officers must undergo one year of structured training before assuming office.
- No Retrospective Effect: The 3-year practice rule will not apply to recruitment processes already notified by High Courts.
Background:
The origin of the issue dates back to the 1993 All India Judges Association v. Union of India ruling, which initially mandated a minimum practice requirement. However, this was later dropped on recommendations from the Shetty Commission, which feared the rule deterred bright law graduates. The rule’s removal led to concerns over underprepared recruits, prompting the current reconsideration.
With this ruling, the apex court has emphasized that courtroom exposure is vital for maintaining judicial quality and accountability in the lower judiciary.