Rabiya Jan
The Supreme Court’s latest decision on entry-level judicial recruitment has brought relief to thousands of young law graduates. But the story behind the headline that the three-year practice requirement has been reduced to one year is much older. The issue has travelled through more than three decades of judicial history and reflects a continuing question: should a person have substantial courtroom experience before becoming a judge, or can that experience be developed through structured training after selection? The roots of the controversy can be traced to the All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India litigation. The first judgment, delivered in 1991, dealt broadly with the need to reform and strengthen the subordinate judiciary. The issue of prior legal practice came into sharper focus in the second All India Judges’ Association judgment in 1993. At the time, most States required three years of practice for entry into the lowest level of judicial service, while some did not. The Supreme Court sought to bring uniformity and directed all States to prescribe three years’ practice as an essential qualification for recruitment to the lowest rung of the judiciary. The reasoning was straightforward.
A judicial officer is not merely a government employee. A judge deals with matters involving people’s liberty, property, rights and reputation. The Court therefore considered practical exposure to courts and litigation important for someone entering judicial office. The three-year requirement was intended to ensure that a person taking the Bench was not completely unfamiliar with the realities of legal practice. The debate, however, did not end there. In 1996, the Government constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission, popularly known as the Shetty Commission. Its report, submitted in 1999, reconsidered whether three years of practice should remain compulsory for entry-level judicial service. The Commission took the view that, with changes in legal education and the increasing inclusion of practical components in law courses, insisting on three years of Bar practice was not necessarily justified. It recommended removing the mandatory requirement while placing greater emphasis on proper training for young judicial recruits.
The Supreme Court accepted this approach in 2002. The three-year practice condition was removed for entry-level judicial recruitment, allowing fresh law graduates to compete for judicial service without prior Bar experience. At the same time, the Court recognised that young recruits would need practical preparation and recommended training for not less than one year and, preferably, two years. For more than two decades, fresh law graduates could therefore aspire to enter judicial service without first spending three years at the Bar. That position changed in May 2025, when the Supreme Court revisited the issue and restored the three-year practice requirement for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The Court emphasized the value of courtroom experience and held that a prospective judge should have some familiarity with the functioning of courts before assuming judicial responsibility. The decision led to another round of debate.
Questions were raised about whether three years of conventional Bar practice was the only way to acquire the experience needed for judicial office. The matter again reached the Supreme Court through review petitions and proceedings initiated by Bhumika Trust, which represented specially-abled candidates and raised concerns about the impact of the three-year requirement. The Court also considered submissions from High Courts, law universities and National Law Universities, bringing a wider range of views into the discussion. The latest chapter came on 21 August 2026, when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors. The majority, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Augustine George Masih, modified the earlier three-year rule. Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissented and favoured retaining the three-year practice requirement. The new arrangement is more nuanced than simply saying that “three years have been abolished and one year has been introduced.” For recruitment notifications issued on or after 1 April 2027, a candidate seeking to become a Civil Judge (Junior Division) will need at least one year of actual legal practice before appearing for the examination. Even after selection, the candidate will not immediately become a regular judicial officer. The selected candidate will first be designated as a Trainee Judicial Officer and will undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by one year of structured Law Clerkship. The clerkship is designed to provide direct judicial exposure.
“The eligibility criteria for entering the judiciary have repeatedly shifted between three-year practice requirements, direct entry for fresh graduates, and structured hybrid models. This reflects an ongoing attempt to balance two competing priorities: providing fair entry opportunities for young law graduates and ensuring candidates are sufficiently prepared for judicial responsibilities.”
The first six months will be spent under the supervision of a Principal District or District and Sessions Judge, or a member of the Higher Judicial Service. The next six months will be spent under a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court. In this way, the new model seeks to bring courtroom experience and formal judicial training together rather than relying only on the number of years a young lawyer has spent at the Bar. The transition period is also significant. For recruitment notifications issued up to 31 March 2027, law graduates will be permitted to apply notwithstanding the earlier three-year practice requirement. During this transitional period, candidates will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice for the purpose of eligibility. Those selected will still have to complete the prescribed training and clerkship before regular appointment. The financial and institutional aspects of the new system are equally important.
During the one- year Judicial Academy training, Trainee Judicial Officers will receive emoluments equivalent to one-half of the gross remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the concerned State. Regular appointment will follow only after successful completion of the prescribed training and clerkship and a satisfactory evaluation. The Constitution itself shows that professional experience has long been considered relevant to judicial office. Article 233 provides that a person appointed directly as a District Judge must have been an advocate or pleader for at least seven years. That provision, however, applies to District Judges and should not be confused with the entry-level Civil Judge recruitment now under discussion. The distinction is important because different levels of the judiciary have historically carried different expectations of professional experience.
The latest judgment, therefore, does not simply settle the question of whether practice is more important than training. Instead, it adopts a middle path. Some prior courtroom exposure remains necessary, but the period has been reduced, while a substantial part of the candidate’s professional preparation will take place after selection through supervised training and clerkship. Much will now depend on implementation. If the academy training is rigorous, the clerkship provides genuine courtroom exposure and the final evaluation is taken seriously, young judicial officers could enter service with a more structured preparation than the old system provided. If these stages become mere formalities, however, the concerns that led the Court to restore the three-year requirement in 2025 may surface again.
The journey from the early 1990s to the present shows how the Supreme Court’s thinking on judicial recruitment has evolved. From three years of mandatory practice in 1993, to allowing fresh graduates to enter in 2002, to restoring the three-year requirement in 2025, and now to one year of practice followed by two years of structured training and clerkship, the law has moved between two competing concerns: giving young graduates a fair opportunity to enter the judiciary and ensuring that those who do enter are adequately prepared for the responsibilities of the Bench. Ultimately, the success of the new system will not be measured simply by whether the number is three or one. It will depend on whether the process produces judges who understand both the law and the realities of the people who come before them. After all, the person sitting on the Bench may decide questions of liberty, property and rights. What matters most, therefore, is not simply how long a person has waited to become a judge, but how well that person has been prepared to be one.
(The Author is a Lawyer by profession. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
[email protected]
