On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reinstated the requirement that candidates applying for civil judge posts must have at least three years of legal practice. The Court emphasized that there is no alternative to first-hand courtroom experience and practical understanding of justice delivery. This criterion, originally removed in 2002 to attract top talent, has now been reintroduced based on two decades of feedback from high courts.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran highlighted that appointing fresh law graduates had led to multiple issues. High courts reported that new recruits lacked familiarity with litigation and judicial processes. The bench asserted that experienced lawyers bring not only legal knowledge but also sensitivity to human issues arising in litigation.
The decision came in response to a plea by the All India Judges Association, prompting the Court to seek inputs from states and high courts. The Court directed all states and high courts to amend their recruitment rules within three months to reflect this requirement.
It further clarified that the ruling would not affect ongoing recruitment or those already notified. The change will apply to future selection cycles. The recruitment paused in some states during the case will proceed based on the rules mentioned in their respective advertisements.
The Court stated that legal experience will be counted from the date of provisional registration, followed by formal registration upon clearing the All India Bar Examination. Applicants must submit an experience certificate endorsed by a senior lawyer with at least 10 years of standing and authenticated by a principal judicial officer. Those practicing in the High Courts or Supreme Court must produce similar certificates endorsed by judges.
The three-year practice condition was previously removed following the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, which argued that judicial service failed to attract young legal talent. The Supreme Court had accepted these suggestions in its 2002 ruling, originally based on the 1993 All India Judges Association case. However, the recent judgment marks a significant policy reversal aimed at enhancing the competence and preparedness of judicial officers.
