Supreme Court Reconsiders Mandatory Legal Practice Rule for Civil Judge Appointments
Last Updated on February 3, 2025 by Amit Patra
In a development that can reshape judicial recruitment in India, the Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider the mandatory requirement of legal practice for aspiring civil judges, in what could amount to a virtual reversal of its 2002 judgment, which scrapped the three-year practice prerequisite.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, which also includes Justices AG Masih and KV Chandran, is considering whether or not fresh law graduates should be made compulsorily to have practical experience in courts before being inducted into judicial services. The deliberation comes amid growing complaints from High Courts across the country over the ineffectiveness of judges without practical experience in the courts.
The matter came up during hearing of a writ petition filed by the All India Judges Association. Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appointed as Amicus Curiae, pointed out that most High Courts consider the induction of fresh law graduates into judicial service to be “counter-productive.” This is in direct contrast to the 2002 judgment, which had scrapped the practice requirement in light of the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission, on grounds that the mandatory period of practice scared away talented candidates from entering judicial services.
Justice Gavai noted that the landscape has considerably changed since 2002, observing that “service conditions are now so attractive that a lawyer with three years of practice would be more than willing to enter judicial service.” This observation dismantles the primary reasoning behind the 2002 decision.
The court also wrestled with the issue of ensuring quality legal practice. Justices Masih and Gavai shared practical experiences illustrating how some candidates hold paper qualifications without meaningful experience in court. Justice Masih gave an example of a candidate who had been registered as an advocate for two years but had never set foot in court.
Though the High Courts, by and large, are in agreement on the requirement of prior practice, they are not in consensus on its duration—some for two years, others for three. Uttarakhand High Court proposes counting of practice period after clearing the All India Bar Examination, while Punjab & Haryana High Court proposes including the provisional registration period as practice time.
The reconsideration of this requirement by the court is a broader concern about the quality of judicial officers and their capacity to manage courtroom proceedings. The outcome of this deliberation may have a great impact on the future composition of the lower judiciary in India and the quality of justice dispensation at the grassroots level.
