Supreme Court Mandates Minimum 3 Years Of Bar Practice To Enter Judicial Service | Book Knowledge Not Enough | Fresh Graduates Without Court Exposure Have Led To Many Problems
Kiran Raj
In a landmark judgment impacting aspiring judicial officers across the country, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 20, reinstated the requirement of a minimum three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for applying to entry-level posts in the judiciary. The ruling clarifies that this experience can be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment as an advocate. However, the condition will apply only to future recruitment processes and not those already initiated by High Courts before the date of the judgment.
To fulfill this requirement, a certificate issued by an advocate with at least ten years of standing—attested by a judicial officer of the same station—will suffice. For candidates practicing before the High Court or Supreme Court, a certificate from a similarly experienced advocate, endorsed by an officer designated by the respective court, will be accepted. Additionally, time spent working as a law clerk can be counted towards the three-year practice requirement.
The three Judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran, expressed serious concerns about the appointment of fresh law graduates to judicial positions without any courtroom experience. The Court observed that this practice, in place for over two decades, has led to challenges in judicial functioning.
"Judges deal directly with matters of life, liberty, property, and reputation. Neither theoretical knowledge nor pre-service training can replace hands-on experience in the courtroom," the Court stated. The justices emphasized that the nuances of judicial work can only be understood by witnessing firsthand how courts operate, and how lawyers and judges engage within that space.
The judgment came in response to petitions seeking the reintroduction of the experience clause, a requirement originally present in many states until it was scrapped by the Supreme Court in a 2002 ruling. The earlier decision was based on the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which argued that the mandatory practice clause deterred talented young lawyers from entering judicial service. Consequently, the Court allowed fresh law graduates to compete for Munsiff-Magistrate roles.
However, in the present case—the All India Judges Association matter—numerous High Courts expressed support for reinstating the practice mandate. Except for Sikkim and Chhattisgarh, all other High Courts favored the reintroduction of the clause, citing concerns about the inefficacy and inexperience of fresh law graduates in handling judicial responsibilities.
The Court had reserved its verdict on January 28, 2025, and, pending the judgment, had also stayed the Gujarat High Court’s recruitment process that was being conducted without enforcing the three-year requirement.
Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar highlighted the issue of ineffective courtroom exposure among fresh entrants, noting that many simply signed vakalats (power of attorney documents) in name only, without meaningful participation in legal proceedings. The bench echoed this concern, questioning the effectiveness of nominal practice.
Despite this, the Court recognized that meaningful experience, rather than symbolic association with the bar, is what equips a candidate for judicial office.
The current judgment also revisits and partially departs from the Supreme Court’s 2002 stance in the All India Judges Association case. At that time, the Court accepted the Shetty Commission's recommendation to abolish the mandatory practice requirement. It had directed states and High Courts to amend their rules to permit law graduates without any courtroom experience to join the judiciary, with the caveat that recruits should undergo at least one year (preferably two) of formal judicial training.
However, the experience of the last two decades, as acknowledged in the latest ruling, has led the judiciary to reassess the efficacy of that approach. The present decision thus marks a return to emphasizing real-world legal exposure as a critical qualification for the bench.
In addition to restoring the experience requirement, the Supreme Court also issued directives related to the promotion quota under the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, although details of those directives were not elaborated upon in the ruling.
To be updated after the judgment is uploaded.
