[BREAKING] Supreme Court Mandates Minimum 3 Years of Practice as Advocate for Entry into Judicial Service

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a minimum of three years’ advocacy experience is mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service, restoring a requirement that had been previously relaxed in 2002.

The case arose in the context of the long-standing litigation in the All India Judges Association matter, where the petitioner association and several High Courts raised concerns about the suitability of fresh law graduates being appointed directly to the judicial service.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The Supreme Court had earlier, in 2002, accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission to remove the requirement of prior legal practice, thereby allowing fresh law graduates to apply for entry-level judicial posts.

Read More: Reimbursed Expenses Excludable only When ‘Pure Agent’ Conditions u/r 5 of Service Tax Rules are Satisfied: CESTAT [Read Order]

In the present judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, reversed the 2002 stance. The court observed that the experience over the past two decades had shown that direct recruitment of candidates without any courtroom exposure had led to several practical and qualitative challenges in judicial functioning.

The court explained that from day one, judicial officers handle complex matters involving life, liberty, and property, which require more than academic knowledge or training modules. The court observed that practical exposure to court processes is essential for developing judicial acumen and temperament.

The court held that a candidate’s three-year practice period may include experience as a law clerk and must be supported by a certificate from a senior advocate with at least ten years of standing. For those practicing in the Supreme Court or High Courts, the certificate must be endorsed by an officer designated by the respective court.

Read More: Mere Mention of Sale and Estimated Gain, No Tangible Material Linking Deceased CFO to Escaped Income: ITAT Invalidates Reopening [Read Order]

The court clarified that the condition would apply prospectively and would not affect recruitment processes already initiated by High Courts prior to the date of the judgment. The decision effectively stayed the recruitment by the Gujarat High Court that had proceeded without the minimum practice requirement after the case was reserved for judgment.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, acting as Amicus Curiae, submitted that allowing fresh graduates into the judiciary without any litigation experience undermined judicial competence. Most High Courts supported the restoration of the minimum practice rule, with the exception of the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh.

The court ruled that the minimum practice requirement is essential to ensure that judicial officers possess the requisite familiarity with courtroom procedures and the justice delivery system. The court reinstated the rule mandating a minimum of three years’ practice as an advocate for future judicial service appointments.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates