Author: Gauri Aggarwal, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Abstract
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment delivered on May 20, 2024, has reinstated the mandatory three-year litigation experience as a prerequisite for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations. Overruling its previous decision in the Third All India Judges’ Association Case (2002), the Court held that the absence of practical exposure among fresh law graduates had compromised judicial maturity, temperament, and institutional efficiency in the subordinate judiciary. Relying on empirical inputs from various High Courts, the Bench held that mere academic knowledge and training imparted through judicial academies cannot substitute for sustained courtroom practice, procedural familiarity, and client interaction.
The Court clarified that the three-year requirement must be calculated from the date a candidate receives provisional enrollment with a State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961, and not from the date on which the candidate qualifies the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). Recognising the potential for procedural abuse, the Court also directed a dual-certification mechanism—requiring validation from a senior advocate (10+ years at the Bar) and an endorsing judicial authority. Additionally, experience as a Law Clerk has been brought within the scope of “legal practice.”
While the ruling seeks to enhance the quality of adjudication, it raises critical concerns under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, particularly in relation to access to judicial service, exclusion of non-litigation professionals, gender parity, and age-bar constraints. This article examines the ruling through the lens of constitutional validity, administrative feasibility, and the long-term implications for judicial vacancies, diversity, and institutional access.
Keywords: Three-Year Litigation Experience, Civil Judge Exam, Judicial Service, Provisional Enrollment, AIBE, Subordinate Judiciary, Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21, Law Clerks, Certification Mechanism, Bar-Bench Interface, Constitutional Validity, Judicial Reform, Courtroom Exposure.
Issue
Whether the minimum practice requirement of three years at the Bar for Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants, previously removed by the Supreme Court, ought to be constitutionally and practically reinstated, and if so, what should be the operative date for calculating such experience?
Key Findings of the Supreme Court Judgment
Restoration of Mandatory Bar Practice
The Supreme Court mandated that candidates must possess at least three years of continuous and active legal practice as enrolled advocates to be eligible for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination, making it an essential condition for entry into the subordinate judiciary.This requirement aims to ensure that judicial entrants possess essential practical exposure, procedural awareness, and a working familiarity with litigants and court functioning.
Starting Point for Experience Calculation
The period of legal practice shall be reckoned from the date of provisional enrollment under the Advocates Act, 1961, and not from the date of passing the AIBE. The Court reasoned that since provisional enrollment grants a candidate the legal right to practice law, any delay in writing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE)—owing to institutional or administrative factors—should not prejudice the candidate’s eligibility to appear for the judicial service examination.
Exclusion of Non-Litigation Legal Roles
The Court categorically excluded work experience in non-litigation domains—such as law firms’ corporate departments, in-house counsel positions, legal academia, or contract management roles—from the definition of “legal practice.” Only active litigation practice before courts of law, involving regular court appearances, client interaction, and engagement with adversarial legal procedure, shall qualify.
Certification of Active Practice
To verify genuine litigation experience:
A candidate is required to submit a practice certificate issued by an advocate who has not less than ten years of experience at the Bar, affirming the candidate’s active engagement in legal practice.
This certificate must be endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of the district where the candidate practiced.
For those practicing before the High Courts or the Supreme Court, endorsement must be provided by an officer designated by the respective Court.
The objective is to prevent proxy registrations or passive enrollment from being used to bypass the practice requirement.
Recognition of Judicial Clerkship
Time spent as a law clerk or judicial assistant to a Judge or Judicial Officer shall be deemed valid for fulfilling the practice requirement. The Court recognised that such roles offer substantial procedural insight, legal research training, and institutional familiarity.
Mandatory Pre-Service Training
All newly appointed judges must undergo a one-year structured training program before assuming judicial office. The training shall focus on judicial ethics, courtroom management, procedural law, and decision-making.
Prospective Application
The Court directed that the decision will operate prospectively, leaving ongoing recruitment processes unaffected. It further instructed all State Governments to make necessary amendments to their judicial service rules, ensuring that the revised eligibility criteria apply only from future recruitment cycles.
Relevant Case Laws
All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288
In this seminal judgment, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of prior litigation experience for entrants into the subordinate judiciary. Recognizing that judges are tasked with adjudicating matters of liberty and property from the very beginning of their careers, the Court directed that only those with at least three years of active practice at the Bar be appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division). The rationale was that legal practice fosters courtroom familiarity, procedural understanding, and the temperament required for judicial office.
All India Judges’ Assn. v. Union of India (Third AIJA Case), (2002) 4 SCC 247
This ruling reversed the earlier mandate, holding that a mandatory three-year practice requirement discouraged meritorious law graduates from considering judicial service as a viable career path. The Court accepted the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, which emphasized that training at judicial academies could effectively prepare new entrants for judicial work. Consequently, the eligibility threshold was lowered, allowing fresh law graduates to directly appear for judicial recruitment examinations.
State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, (2000) 4 SCC 640
In this case, the Supreme Court highlighted that a judicial officer is not merely a legal technician, but must possess the practical ability to understand litigants’ grievances, assess evidence, and manage courtroom dynamics. The Court remarked that legal acumen, without exposure to the adversarial process, is insufficient for the discharge of judicial functions, especially at the trial level. This observation aligns with the rationale behind restoring the practice requirement.
These cases collectively illustrate that litigation experience has long been viewed as integral to judicial readiness, even if there has been historical fluctuation in the enforcement of such eligibility criteria. The recent 2024 judgment realigns judicial policy with the precedent set in 1993, fortified by contemporary administrative evidence and the ground realities of court functioning.
Legal Challenges and Concerns
Article 14 – Arbitrariness and Disproportionate Classification
Imposing a fixed three-year litigation experience may fall foul of equality jurisprudence, especially when applied uniformly across aspirants from diverse backgrounds, without accounting for socio-economic disparities.
Article 19(1)(g) – Right to Profession
The condition arguably restricts entry into the judicial service by placing unreasonable burdens on fresh law graduates, disproportionately affecting those who choose non-litigation pathways (e.g., law firms, corporate counsel).
Article 21 – Substantive Due Process
The judgment may be challenged for ignoring the lived realities of aspirants, particularly women and economically weaker candidates, potentially rendering the condition unjust, unfair, and excessive in the constitutional sense.
Administrative Discretion and Non-Uniformity
The suggested safeguard of certification by practicing advocates or judicial officers lacks statutory backing and may lead to arbitrary refusals or corrupt practices during verification.
Judicial Vacancy Crisis
With over 5,000 vacant subordinate judicial positions, this condition may exacerbate recruitment delays, worsening the pendency crisis and access to justice concerns.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision attempts to reconcile judicial competence with institutional demands by reviving the Bar experience rule. While well-intentioned, its rigid application without parallel financial safeguards, training reforms, or transitional leeway risks deepening inequality in access to judicial careers. Unless supplemented with structural reforms—such as stipendiary practice schemes, age-limit relaxations, and transparent certification protocols—the ruling may prove exclusionary rather than elevating the Bench’s quality.
FAQS
Q1. From when will the three-year practice requirement be applicable?
The condition applies prospectively—from the next cycle of recruitment—and does not affect ongoing processes.
Q2. Will non-litigating legal experience (e.g., law firms, in-house roles) be counted?
No. The Court mandates active courtroom practice, certified by a senior advocate and verified by judicial authorities.
Q3. What is the relevant date for calculating three years of practice?
The Court has held that the period shall be counted from the date of provisional enrollment under the Advocates Act, 1961—not from the date of passing the AIBE.
Q4. Is law clerk experience counted?
Yes. Experience as a judicial clerk shall count towards the three-year threshold, in recognition of the substantive exposure such roles provide.
Q5. Can this condition be legally challenged?
Yes, on grounds of constitutional violation (Articles 14, 19, 21), lack of statutory basis, and disproportionate impact on marginalised groups, but success would depend on judicial review standards.
