Recently, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment, extensively discussing judicial service reforms in India. Questions related to the requirement and calculation of minimum 3 years compulsory practice for law graduates appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations under the Lower Judicial Services were considered.
The Court has made it compulsory for law graduates appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations to practice as an advocate for 3 years to strengthen the quality of judicial services.
In this article, we will discuss in detail in simple language the key points related to this decision – such as minimum practice period, its calculation, judicial thinking behind it, and possible implications.
Historical Context :3 years practice rule
When was it added?
In 1993, in All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2nd AIJA case) it was held that –
As the qualifications and procedures for recruitment of civil judges at the lower level vary considerably across states and the appointment of fresh law graduates without practical training has not been effective, all states should adopt a uniform system for recruitment of entry level judicial officers, i.e. civil judges(junior division) with a minimum of 3 years of experience as an advocate. Practical experience is essential for judges to make proper decisions about life, liberty and property, as book knowledge alone is not sufficient. Many states have already implemented this. Standardising this qualification across states will ensure a competent and effective judiciary.
Why was it removed i?
In 2002, in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (3rd AIJA case) held –
Qualifications and procedures in respect of recruitment of judges at the lower level: the Supreme Court had removed the requirement of compulsory practice, relying heavily on the Shetty Commission’s recommendation that intensive induction training could be a substitute for court experience.
The Commission recommended:
Modern legal education (particularly the 5-year integrated course) already includes court visits and clinical training.
Institutes like NLUs are producing better-trained graduates than junior advocates.
The requirement of long experience has discouraged talented students from joining the judiciary.
Recognising this concern, the Court accepted the Shetty Commission’s proposal to remove this requirement and directed the High Courts and State Governments to amend their rules accordingly. However, to ensure that fresh law graduates are adequately prepared for judicial responsibilities, the court emphasised the need for training and recommended a period of at least one year, preferably two years, before assuming office.(Paras 59-61)
Questions to consider regarding 3-year experience
In this background, a controversy arose again regarding the requirement of three years of experience as an advocate in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment examination. In this context, the Supreme Court considered the following fundamental questions-
- As to whether the requirement of having minimum three years practice for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was done away by this Court in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. (supra), needs to be restored? And if so, by how many years?
- If the requirement of certain minimum years of practice for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is restored, should the same be calculated from the date of the provisional enrolment/registration or from the date of the passing of the AIBE?
Reason to restore
The Court considered several reasons for the requirement of 3 years practice as advocate for a civil judge which may be briefly summarised as follows:
Judicial Work Involves Sensitive, Real-Life Impact
The Court noted that civil judges, from day one, decide cases involving liberty, property, family and criminal law. The Court observed that judicial work involves sensitive, real-life impact. That “neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the court-system and administration of justice. (para 83)
The majority of the High Courts supported the restoration of the rule
During the nationwide consultation conducted by the Supreme Court, the majority of the High Courts expressed support for the restoration of the compulsory advocate practice requirement for civil judge (junior division) recruitment. High Courts like Andhra Pradesh, Patna, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Manipur, Madras, Uttarakhand, Allahabad and Calcutta clearly recommended reversion to the three years of practice requirement. Others like Gauhati, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, and Gujarat supported a minimum of two years of practice, while the Delhi High Court suggested at least one year of practical experience. Only the High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim opposed the restoration of this eligibility condition. (paras 64-75)
Supreme Court’s Conclusion and Guidelines:
Regarding 3 years of practice,
- all the High Courts and State Governments in the country may amend the relevant service rules so that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall have to practise for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination.
- For fulfilling the said requirement, the rules shall require the candidate to produce a certificate duly certified by the Principal Judicial Officer of such Court or an advocate of such Court having minimum 10 years of experience duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of such District or Principal Judicial Officer at such place.
- In case of candidates practising in High Courts or Supreme Court, it should be certified by an advocate having minimum 10 years of experience duly endorsed by an officer nominated by such High Court or this Court. The experience gained by the candidates while working as law clerk with any judge or judicial officer in the country should also be taken into account in calculating the total years of their practice.
- It will also be mandatory that the candidates appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) after selection through examination will have to undergo compulsory training for at least one year before getting regular board in the court.
Calculation of 3 years of practice
- The number of years of practice completed by a candidate wishing to appear in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) will be counted from the date of his/her provisional enrolment/registration with the concerned State Bar Council.
Effect on ongoing recruitments
- The aforesaid requirement of minimum years of practice shall not apply in cases where the High Court concerned has already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) before the date of this judgment (ongoing recruitments), and will be made applicable only from the next recruitment process.
When will the Judgment come into force
- All amendments shall be made by the High Courts within a period of three months from the date of this Judgment and the State Governments concerned shall consider and approve the same within a further period of three months.
Citation :
Case Title: All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Constitution Bench
Date of Judgment: 20 May 2025
Citation: [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989]
Reported in: Yet to be officially reported (expected in SCC/INSC databases)
