In a landmark decision with wide implications for judiciary aspirants across the country, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 20, ruled that a minimum period of practice as an advocate is mandatory for applying to entry-level positions in the judicial service.
The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered the verdict in the long-pending All India Judges Association case. The Court clarified that the period of legal practice can be counted from the date of provisional enrollmentand a certificate from a lawyer with at least 10 years of standingendorsed by a judicial officerwould be considered sufficient proof.
For those practising at the Supreme Court or High Courtthe certificate must be attested by an advocate with the same standing and endorsed by a designated officer of the respective Court.
This marks a reversal of the Court’s 2002 ruling, which had eliminated the requirement for minimum advocacy experience, thereby allowing fresh law graduates to apply for Munsiff-Magistrate posts directly. The current judgment comes after multiple petitions were filed seeking reinstatement of the minimum practice condition, a move that also received support from several High Courts across India.
The judgment also addresses growing concerns over the preparedness of fresh law graduates entering the judiciary without any court experience. During the hearing, the Court acknowledged issues raised by Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagarwho emphasized the importance of courtroom exposure for judicial aspirants. The bench expressed similar reservations, particularly over the trend of candidates signing vakalats in name onlywithout engaging in meaningful practice.
Most High Courts and State Governments had communicated their preference for a two to three years’ minimum practice requirementstating that direct entry by fresh graduates had proven “counter-productive” and was hampering the efficient functioning of lower courts. Only the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh had opposed the restoration of the three-year rule.
The Court’s decision effectively overturns a portion of the 2002 ruling, which had accepted the Shetty Commission’s recommendation that the three-year advocacy clause be removed to attract better talent to the judicial service. At that time, it was argued that top legal minds were discouraged by delays and unattractive prospects in the lower judiciary.
Today’s verdict, however, reflects a course correction based on ground-level challenges, emphasizing that practical legal experience is essential for a competent and independent judiciary.
As a result of the ruling, the Supreme Court has directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend their judicial service rules to reinstate the minimum practice requirement. The decision also validates earlier stays imposed on recruitment drives (such as that by the Gujarat High Court) that had proceeded without this prerequisite.
The ruling is expected to significantly impact upcoming judicial recruitments across India and reshape eligibility criteria going forward.
