New Delhi, May 20: In a landmark judgment aimed at enhancing the quality of judicial appointments, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that fresh law graduates will no longer be eligible to appear in entry-level judicial service examinations. The apex court has made it mandatory for aspirants to have a minimum of three years of legal practice experience to qualify for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The move underscores the importance of courtroom exposure and real-world legal experience before assuming judicial responsibilities.
The ruling was delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, alongside Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, as part of a comprehensive 63-page verdict. The decision came in response to a plea filed by the All India Judges Association, seeking structural reforms in the recruitment and promotion process within the judiciary.
The bench also ordered all High Courts and respective state governments to amend their service rules to reflect this change. It stated clearly that only those candidates who have actively practiced law for a minimum of three years—counted from the date of provisional registration with the State Bar Council—will be eligible to appear for the judicial service exams from the next recruitment cycle onward. Recruitment processes already underway will not be affected by this ruling.
Importantly, the court clarified that experience gained while working as a law clerk to judges or judicial officers will also be counted as valid practice, provided proper certification is furnished. Such certificates must be signed either by the principal judicial officer of the concerned court or by a practicing advocate with a minimum of ten years’ standing, and duly endorsed by the judicial authority of the district or court where the experience was obtained. For those practicing before High Courts or the Supreme Court, a certificate from a senior advocate and an endorsement from a designated judicial officer will suffice.
In a significant change to promotion mechanisms within the judicial system, the Supreme Court also directed that the quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent. This quota facilitates the promotion of civil judges (senior division) to higher judicial service or the rank of District Judge based purely on merit, as opposed to the conventional method of promotion based on the principle of merit-cum-seniority.
The bench asserted that increasing the LDCE quota will not negatively impact the administration of justice, as it provides a merit-based avenue for capable judicial officers to rise within the ranks. Currently, 25 percent of positions in the higher judiciary are filled by direct recruitment from practicing advocates, while 50 percent are filled through promotion.
The judgment also emphasized the mandatory requirement of a one-year formal training for all newly selected civil judges (junior division) before they begin presiding in courtrooms. This, the bench believes, will equip them better for the complexities and sensitivities of the judicial role.
In strongly worded observations, the court highlighted that judicial officers, from the very first day in office, are entrusted with decisions affecting the life, liberty, property, and reputation of citizens. The bench noted that previous experiences of appointing fresh law graduates directly into the judiciary had not yielded favorable outcomes, with many of them struggling with behavioral and temperamental issues. Several High Courts had supported the move to reintroduce a minimum practice requirement, noting the need for greater maturity and exposure to the realities of the legal profession.
The court acknowledged that while young law graduates may face limited opportunities initially, the practical exposure they gain during this period is invaluable. It helps them understand the gravity of the role, brings clarity in legal reasoning, and fosters a deeper empathy towards the human challenges that litigants face.
“Exposure to court proceedings, interaction with litigants, and engagement with legal documentation provides a foundational sensitivity and understanding that is indispensable for any aspiring judge,” the bench noted.