Supreme Court Prescribes Minimum Three Years of Advocacy Experience for Entry into Judicial Service
In a significant ruling impacting aspiring members of the judiciary, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 20, reinstated the requirement of a minimum of three years' practice as an advocate for candidates seeking entry into judicial service at the entry level. The period of legal practice can be counted from the date of provisional enrollment. However, this mandate will apply solely to future recruitment processes and will not affect those already initiated by High Courts prior to this judgment.
5/20/20251 min read
The Supreme Court specified that a certificate issued by an advocate with a minimum of ten years' standing, duly endorsed by the judicial officer of the relevant jurisdiction, will serve as valid proof of practice. For individuals practicing before the Supreme Court or High Courts, such a certificate must be endorsed by an officer designated by the respective Court. This ensures a standardized verification mechanism for evaluating candidates' practical legal experience.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling in the All India Judges Association case. The original three-year practice requirement existed in most states but was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2002, thereby permitting fresh law graduates to apply for positions such as Munsiff-Magistrate. Over time, however, several High Courts and stakeholders petitioned the Court to reinstate the requirement, citing concerns about the competence and preparedness of fresh graduates.
During the proceedings, the Court took into account submissions by Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, who emphasized the drawbacks of admitting law graduates without practical experience into judicial roles. The bench echoed these concerns, highlighting the potential ineffectiveness of superficial practice arrangements. A majority of High Courts and State Governments supported the reinstatement, asserting that prior legal practice is essential for the effective functioning of judicial officers. Only the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh opposed this view, maintaining that a mandatory practice period was unnecessary.
The 2002 judgment in the All India Judges Association case had removed the practice requirement based on the Shetty Commission’s recommendation, which observed that the existing rule deterred talented young lawyers from joining the judiciary. At that time, the Court directed High Courts and State Governments to amend their recruitment rules accordingly and recommended one to two years of judicial training for new recruits. However, in light of evolving circumstances and practical challenges, the Supreme Court has now deemed it necessary to restore the three-year practice requirement, aligning with the prevailing consensus across most High Courts and legal authorities.