Legal Practice

SC Restores 3-Year Legal Practice Requirement for Judicial Services: All India Judges Association Case (2025)

Why Is This in the News?

Recently, the Supreme Court of India reinstated the requirement that those who wish to enter the judiciary at the entry level have at least three years of legal experience. The ruling in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (2025) was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran. The Court clarified that the reinstated eligibility requirement will not impact ongoing judicial recruitment processes and will apply solely to future appointments.

Background of the Case

The eligibility requirements for junior-level judicial positions in India, specifically the Civil Judge (Junior Division) post, were at the core of this case. In the past, in order to be considered for these positions, many states required applicants to have at least three years of experience as  advocates. However, the Supreme Court removed this requirement in a landmark 2002 judgment, which also pertained to the All India Judges Association. Even recent law graduates without prior courtroom experience were now able to apply for these positions as a result of that ruling.

This relaxation of rules led to growing concern across various judicial and administrative circles. Several applications were submitted before the Supreme Court, seeking to reinstate the earlier prerequisite of a minimum legal practice. A majority of High Courts across the country supported this demand, asserting that the lack of courtroom experience among newly recruited judges was affecting the quality and efficiency of judicial functioning. It was argued that practical experience in advocacy equips candidates with the skills necessary for judicial duties, such as drafting, legal interpretation, and understanding procedural nuances.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, acting as Amicus Curiae (an impartial legal advisor to the Court), firmly opposed the appointment of candidates lacking prior advocacy experience. He argued that such appointments compromise the effectiveness of the judicial system and adversely affect the administration of justice.

Notably, the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh were the only ones to oppose the reinstatement of the three-year practice requirement. All other High Courts supported its reimplementation. Given these differing opinions, the Supreme Court had previously reserved its verdict and issued a temporary stay on recruitment processes that did not include this eligibility criterion.

Key Observations by the Court

After thoroughly examining the submissions and materials presented by the parties, the Supreme Court concluded that it was appropriate to restore the three-year advocacy experience as a precondition for applying to entry-level judicial posts. However, the Court made it explicitly clear that this condition would apply only to recruitments initiated after the date of the judgment. It would not be implemented retrospectively or impact selection processes already in progress.

The Court provided detailed guidelines on how this condition would be verified. It held that the period of legal practice would be counted from the date of provisional enrollment with a State Bar Council—not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). This interpretation allows candidates to begin accumulating experience immediately after enrollment, regardless of when they pass the AIBE.

To establish that the candidate meets the required practice threshold, the Court introduced a structured verification mechanism. A certificate from a senior advocate with at least ten years of standing at the Bar—endorsed by a judicial officer in the relevant district—will serve as acceptable proof of experience. In cases where the candidate practices in High Courts or the Supreme Court, a similar certificate, attested by a designated officer of the court, will be valid.

Moreover, the Court addressed concerns about superficial compliance. It acknowledged that in some cases, candidates might attempt to meet the requirement by merely signing vakalatnamas (authorization letters) without genuinely practicing law. To prevent such misuse, the Court emphasized the importance of genuine legal work and suggested vigilance in verifying the nature of a candidate’s legal practice.

The judgment also touched upon the value of courtroom exposure and interactions with clients, peers, and judges. According to the Bench, such experiences are crucial in shaping the professional conduct, legal reasoning, and practical understanding expected from a judge.

Additional Directions and Clarifications

In addition to reinstating the three-year rule, the Court also addressed several related concerns:

• Training Requirement: The Court directed that selected candidates must undergo one year of judicial training before they assume judicial responsibilities. This aims to enhance their readiness and bridge any remaining skill gaps.
• Inclusion of Law Clerk Experience: The Bench held that time spent working as a judicial law clerk—where candidates assist judges in research and drafting—would count toward the three-year practice requirement. This is a significant relief for those who gain practical knowledge through this route instead of courtroom advocacy.
• Notifications Already Issued: The judgment clarified that certain recruitment notifications already published—such as those in Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh—will not be affected by this ruling. Those selection processes can continue without the newly reinstated eligibility criteria.
• Prospective Application Only: The Court reiterated that the judgment will apply prospectively, safeguarding the interests of candidates already participating in ongoing selection processes. High Courts can thus continue their existing recruitment drives without disruption.

Is Three Years of Practice Necessary?

The decision has reignited a debate over the necessity of prior legal experience for judicial appointments. Advocates for the three-year rule argue that judicial officers with courtroom experience are better prepared to handle complex legal issues, interact with litigants, and manage court proceedings effectively. They point out that without such experience, many fresh graduates lack the maturity and procedural understanding needed to fulfill their judicial duties.

Nonetheless, opponents may argue that training programs can foster the energy, adaptability, and eagerness to learn that recent law graduates bring. But the Supreme Court has recognized that most High Courts and State authorities agree that practical experience improves decision-making, boosts confidence, and deepens understanding of legal nuances.

Conclusion

The All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (2025) decision by the Supreme Court represents a dramatic change in the country’s judicial recruitment procedures. The Court has reaffirmed the importance of courtroom experience in providing an effective and efficient legal system by reintroducing the three-year minimum practice requirement. A balanced approach that respects both merit and practical exposure is shown by the thoughtfully developed guidelines for proof of practice, the inclusion of law clerkships, and the judgment’s prospective nature.

It is anticipated that this decision will improve the general caliber of judicial appointments in the future by making sure that those who serve on the bench are not only academically but also practically prepared to protect the rule of law.

Frequently Asked questions:

Read More:

Operation Sindoor: India’s Bold Strike Against Terror