The Supreme Court, modified the manner of implementation of the three-year Bar-practice requirement for entry-level Civil Judge recruitment, while retaining the requirement in substance. It introduced a transitional scheme under which all law graduates remain eligible up to 31.03.2027, and thereafter required one year of actual practice coupled with one year of structured judicial training and one year of Law Clerkship, each deemed equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar. The scheme is to remain in force for five years.
Facts
The judgment concerned review/clarification petitions challenging the 20.05.2025 decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which had restored three years' practice at the Bar as an eligibility condition for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The batch comprised (i) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2025 filed by Bhumika Trust, an entity representing several hundred persons with disabilities, seeking clarification as to the interplay of the Judgment under Review with In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services; (ii) three Review Petitions seeking recall of directions (vii) and (viii) of the Judgment under Review; and (iii) I.A. Nos. 336090 and 336091/2025 seeking that the period spent in higher legal education be counted towards the practice requirement. The challenge particularly concerned its impact on fresh graduates, women, persons with disabilities and candidates who had prepared under the earlier eligibility regime. Views of all High Courts, Law Universities and National Law Schools were called for.
Issues Framed
- Whether some prior exposure to the working of courts is desirable for a person seeking entry into judicial service.
- Whether such exposure necessarily requires three years of conventional practice at the Bar as a condition precedent to even appearing for the examination.
- How the restored requirement should be implemented fairly, particularly during the transition.
- Whether the period spent in higher legal education ought to be counted towards the prescribed period of practice.
Court's Reasoning
(a) Need for practical exposure: The Court held that some familiarity with the functioning of courts is an "indispensable precondition". A Civil Judge is required to deal with questions affecting life, liberty, property and personal rights of litigants from the very first day of service, and such exposure may contribute to the development of judicial temperament, patience, empathy, courtroom discipline and an appreciation of the respective roles of the Bench and the Bar. The Court saw no reason, in review jurisdiction, to displace that finding.
(b) Three years' practice not the only means: The Court held that "three years of practice at the Bar alone does not ensure" adequate familiarity with the working of courts, and that "practical experience and judicial competence continue to develop even after a person joins the judicial service." The quality of practice may depend upon the nature of the chamber, the court in which the advocate practises, the opportunities for appearance, the availability of a mentor and the financial circumstances of the candidate. Practical exposure and judicial training may therefore be acquired through a combination of professional and institutional experience, a distinction the Judgment under Review had itself recognised when it directed that Law Clerk experience be counted towards the prescribed period.
(c) Transitional hardship: The sudden restoration of the requirement materially affected a generation of graduates who had planned their careers under the earlier regime, and its burden was not distributed evenly, falling more heavily on candidates without financial support, on women and on persons with disabilities. The Court nonetheless declined to create separate eligibility regimes for individual categories, the High Courts having rightly cautioned against fragmented standards. It held that "a limited intervention is warranted", directed not to the desirability of practical experience but to the enforcement and implementation of the requirement.
(d) Transitional framework (notifications issued after the Judgment under Review up to 31.03.2027): All law graduates remain eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year requirement, and are deemed to have completed one year of active practice without any Certificate of Practice for the deemed period. Selected candidates are designated "Trainee Judicial Officers" and undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy, followed by one year of structured Law Clerkship — the first six months under a Principal District/District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Services, and the remaining six months under a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court. Each of these periods is treated as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar. During both periods the trainee is paid a fixed emolument equivalent to one-half of the remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the concerned State.
(e) Evaluation and regular appointment: Upon completion of the Law Clerkship, the sitting High Court Judge under whose supervision the trainee served must submit a reasoned evaluation report on performance and suitability. Only upon satisfactory evaluation is the Trainee Judicial Officer appointed to the regular post in the field with the regular pay scale and service benefits. The assessment must cover conduct, diligence, analytical ability, understanding of procedure, capacity to deal with cases, quality of legal reasoning and suitability for judicial office, while remaining objective and reasoned and not becoming an additional or undefined barrier to appointment.
(f) Regime from 01.04.2027: Every candidate must possess at least one year of actual practice, from the source and certification laid down in directions (vii) and (viii) of the Judgment under Review, subject to verification through a Certificate of Practice which shall not be issued unless the candidate's presence and participation in "effective judicial proceedings" — whether along with a senior member of the Bar with at least 10 years' practice or otherwise — has been duly recorded in accordance with a mechanism to be prescribed by the High Courts. Applications are to be entertained only on submission of a certificate evidencing one year of actual practice in the District Courts. Such candidates must nonetheless undergo the same one-year Judicial Academy training and one-year Law Clerkship regime.
(g) Higher legal education: The prayer that time spent in higher legal education be counted towards the practice requirement was rejected, having regard to the aim of fostering familiarity and a comprehensive understanding of the functioning of judicial systems.
(h) Separate (dissenting) opinion of K. Vinod Chandran, J.: His Lordship concurred that the Judgment under Review does not require reconsideration on the fundamental question whether prior experience of the working of the Court is desirable, but held that "there is no ground for review, and the controversy should rest there." The coordinate-bench objection was answered as "outrightly fallacious in the scenario of a 'continuing mandamus'". Judicial service cannot be equated with the civil services, there being no supervisory control over the essential adjudicatory duties of a judicial officer. On the futility argument, it was observed that "No training schedule, before or after recruitment, can give a budding jurist; be it a lawyer or a judge, the feel of the life and its worries, throbbing in every brief; which she experiences in practise", and that "the Court room being the most profound of all classrooms." The two-year structured training regime was opposed on the grounds that recruits would continue for two years without regular pay and without the period being reckoned as service, that courts would remain unmanned during the training hiatus, that the High Court Judge's satisfaction would create a further hurdle, and that two classes of recruits from the same source would be created. His Lordship held that "The Review Petitions, hence, stand dismissed", and that the I.A.s and the Writ Petition be posted before the regular Court concerned with the continuing mandamus.
Held
The Judgment under Review was modified to the aforesaid extent, and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2025 as well as the Review Petitions stood disposed of in those terms. The requirement of practical exposure was retained, but its implementation was altered through a transitional and training-based scheme. All notifications/advertisements already issued after the Judgment under Review, as well as those to be issued hereafter, shall conform to and be governed by the directions. The State Governments, in consultation with the jurisdictional High Courts, shall notify the necessary amendments to the applicable Rules within three months, and the interim orders passed in the proceedings stand vacated. The directions were held to adequately address the grievances in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2025, particularly regarding accommodation for persons with disabilities. The scheme shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of the judgment, whereafter its working including the quality of recruitment, the nature and efficacy of training and clerkship and the performance of officers recruited under it shall be placed before the Court and revisited if necessary.
Relevant Para
- At this stage, we may also distinguish between two questions which are sometimes conflated as one. The first is whether a person aspiring to become a Civil Judge should have some familiarity with the functioning of courts. We answer that question in the affirmative as it is an indispensable precondition. The second is whether every aspect of judicial competence which the requirement seeks to secure must necessarily be acquired before the competitive examination and through conventional practice at the Bar. That question admits of a different answer and needs to be scrutinised by keeping in mind the viability of other possible means. In this regard, we believe that practical exposure and judicial training may be acquired through a combination of professional and institutional experience. As we noted above, even the Judgment under Review recognised this distinction when it directed that experience as a Law Clerk be counted towards the prescribed period.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 904
Decided on: 21 August 2026
Case Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Surya Kant, CJI; Augustine George Masih, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J. (majority opinion by Surya Kant, CJI, on behalf of himself and Augustine George Masih, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J. dissenting)