Author- Dev singla, a student of Geeta Institute of Law
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dev-singla-a2748b1b1?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
To The Point
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in May 2025, reinstated a mandatory three-year legal practice before appearing for a Civil Judge (Junior Division) Exam. This ensures that Judges have real courtroom experience, Practical knowledge, procedure knowledge, and Professional maturity. The court believes that this will help in improving the quality and efficiency of the Lower Judiciary System. While this decision seems a major reform in the Lower Judiciary to strengthen the Justice Delivery it also brings challenges to fresh law graduates and those aspiring to become Civil Judge (Junior division), like delayed career entry, financial burden, and societal pressure.
Introduction
In India, judges play a crucial role in upholding justice, protecting the rights of the citizens, and maintaining the rule of law. However becoming a judge is not just learning the legal theory but also requires practical knowledge of the courtrooms, knowledge of the procedure, and real-life challenges faced by the lawyers and litigants.
In India, for the past many years, fresh law graduates have been allowed to appear directly for the judicial services exam without any courtroom experience. This will lead to the appointment of judges with limited exposure to real legal practices.
To address this issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, may 2025 passed a significant judgement mandating that candidates must the at least three years of legal practice or experience working as a law clerk with any judge or judicial officer before they are eligible to appear for the judicial service examination. The court observed that the judicial officer must be appointed from those who have seen how the legal system works from the ground level, especially in the trial court where the facts and evidence play a major role in deciding a matter.
This decision made a major shift towards the experienced judicial recruitment system. It is expected to improve the overall quality of the judges at the entry-level and restore public confidence in the judiciary system. However, this decision has also sparked debate, especially among law students and fresh law graduates regarding the delay in their careers and increased competition at the bar.
In this article, we examine the legal basis of the decision, the reasons behind it, its benefits and drawbacks, and its expected impact on India’s judicial system.
Use of legal jargon
Judicial Service Examination– A competitive exam conducted by State Public Service Commissions or High Courts for the recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and other lower judicial officers.
Civil Judge (Junior Division) – The first entry-level position in the lower judiciary, mainly dealing with civil disputes at the district level.
Legal Practice – Professional work done by a lawyer after enrollment with the State Bar Council, including appearing in courts, drafting, advising clients, etc.
Bar Council – A statutory body that regulates legal education, enrollment, and professional conduct of advocates in India.
Article 233 of the Constitution – Provides for the appointment of district judges and mentions eligibility conditions such as legal practice.
Trial Court – A lower court where civil and criminal cases are first heard and facts are examined; a crucial ground for gaining practical legal experience.
All India Bar Examination (AIBE) – An exam conducted by the Bar Council of India to test whether a law graduate is fit to practice law in India.
The proof
Supreme Court ruling- May 2025
In the judgment, the Supreme Court held that a minimum of three years of legal practice, or working as a law clerk with any judge or judicial officer is mandatory to appear before the judicial service examination. The court stated that these shifts in the judiciary would improve the efficiency of the judges.
Article 233 of the Constitution of India
The article deals with the appointment of district court judges and states that a person must be an Advocate/Pleader for seven years standing. Although it applies to the district judges it reflects the constitutional expectation of legal experience for those entering the judiciary.
Revival in 2025
In 2025, after receiving feedback from multiple high courts expressing concern over the inexperienced judges and lack of knowledge, the Supreme Court decided to reinstate the original 1993 rule, mandating three years of legal practice again.
Bar council certificate and verification
As per the judgment of the Supreme Court, Candidates must have to submit a certificate from an advocate with 10+ experience in the bar association, attested by the district judge, which shows that the candidates have actively participated for 3 years.
Abstract
In a significant judgment delivered in May 2025, the Supreme Court of India mandates a minimum of three years of legal practice as a compulsory qualification to appear in the civil judge exam. This decision aims to ensure future judges not only academically qualify but also have practical experience in real courtroom procedures.
The ruling draws upon the earlier judgment in All India Judge’s Association v. Union of India (1993) and addresses the concerns of various High Courts regarding the lack of practical exposure among the newly recruited judges.
By making the legal experience a prerequisite, the court intended to raise the standard of judicial reasoning, reduce delay, and ensure a justice delivery at the trial stage. While this reform is appreciated by the legal community as quality control measures, it has also drawn criticism for delaying career entry for fresh law graduates and increasing the competition in an already saturated legal field.
Case Laws
Primary case
All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288
Bench: Justice R.M. Sahai and Justice Kuldip Singh
Key point
The Supreme Court decided that a minimum of three years of legal practice is mandatory for recruitment to the lower judiciary. The court highlighted that fresh law graduates often do not have the necessary maturity and experience to manage judicial duties properly.
Significance: This was the first landmark case to recommend practical experience before entry into the judiciary.
Shetty Commission Report (2002)
Though not a case law, this Commission had earlier recommended removal of the 3-year experience rule to attract more candidates. However, its recommendation has now been reconsidered in light of practical challenges and feedback from the judiciary.
Significance: Helps explain the historical context and why the rule was once removed but is now revived.
Supreme Court Judgement- May 20, 2025(Latest Ruling)
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Key Point:
The Court ruled that candidates must have at least three years of active legal practice to be eligible for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exams. This decision brings back the 1993 judgment and addresses the concerns raised by High Courts about young judges not having enough experience in trial courts.
Quote from the Judgment:
“It is in the interest of the justice delivery system that those who decide the fate of others should themselves first face the system and understand it.”
Significance: This is the current legal foundation of the mandatory practice rule and directly enforces the requirement nationwide.
Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik, (2013) 5 SCC 277
Key Point:
The Supreme Court clarified that legal practice must mean actual courtroom advocacy, not just holding a law-related post. The Court distinguished between real legal practice and advisory or clerical roles.
Significance: Reinforces that experience counted under Article 233 or judicial appointments must be genuine courtroom practice.
Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1987
Key Point:
This case interpreted Article 233 of the Constitution, which requires a district judge to be an advocate with at least seven years of practice. The judgment emphasized that judges must be drawn from experienced members of the Bar.
Significance: Although this case deals with district judges, it supports the larger principle that practical legal experience is essential for judicial roles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India mandates three years of practice to appear in a Judicial service exam, which marks a significant step towards enhancing the quality and credibility of the Indian Judiciary. Judges are not mere interpreters of law- they are guardians of justice, and these responsibilities demand not only academic knowledge but also practical experience, courtroom ethics, and decision-making maturity.
By insisting that future judges must first walk through the corridors of courts as advocates, the Court has rightly prioritized real-world legal exposure over early entry. This move is expected to reduce procedural delays, improve the standard of judgments, and instill greater public trust in the lower judiciary.
While some may argue that it delays opportunities for young aspirants, the long-term benefits of this reform outweigh the short-term inconvenience. A well-trained judge is an investment in the rule of law, and as the title of this article suggests — “No Bench Without the Bar” — the path to the judiciary must pass through the experience of legal practice.
This decision does not just change eligibility criteria; it strengthens the foundation of justice delivery in India.
FAQS
Has the eligibility of the civil judge(junior division) changed?
Yes, on 20th May 2025, the Supreme Court restored the rule that an advocate must have three years of legal practice before they can appear in the exam, in the case of All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2025).
From when will this rule be applicable?
It applies prospectively(for future recruitment), meaning students currently studying or recently graduated have time to plan accordingly.
What counts as valid legal practice for this requirement?
Candidates must have actively practiced as an advocate for at least 3 years. This includes:
Representing clients in courts.
Working under a senior advocate.
Even working as a law clerk or judicial intern may be counted, provided it’s certified by a judge or senior lawyer.
How do candidates prove their experience?
Applicants must submit:
A certificate from an advocate with at least 10 years of standing.
A verification of this certificate by the District Judge where the applicant practiced.
Will the 3-year practice period be counted from the date of passing AIBE or from enrollment?
The 3-year practice period will be counted from the date of provisional enrollment with the State Bar Council, not from the date of passing the AIBE exam.
Why is this rule important?
It ensures that judges at the entry level have:
Practical understanding of court procedures.
Experience dealing with real clients and legal arguments.
Improved ability to deliver balanced and well-reasoned judgments.
What if I worked in a law firm but didn’t go to court—will that count?
Yes, this kind of practice will be counted towards the 3-year requirement because there is no rule saying that the practice has to be done before a specific body. However, working in administrative positions in these bodies will not be counted.
Can the rule be challenged or changed in the future?
Since this is a judicial directive from the Supreme Court, it holds legal weight unless:
The Supreme Court revisits the judgment, or
The Parliament passes a law modifying the eligibility criteria, which would then be subject to judicial review.
