Case at a Glance

The Background: How Did We Reach the Present Position?

The present legal position is best understood through the history of the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning entry-level judicial recruitment.

The debate has continued for decades over one fundamental question:

The answer has changed over time.

Stage 1: Three Years of Practice Was Originally Prescribed

The Supreme Court first directed that a minimum period of three years’ practice should be prescribed for recruitment at the lowest level of the judicial service in its earlier All India Judges’ Association litigation.

In the Second AIJA Case, decided in 1993, the Court noted that many States already required three years’ practice for entry-level judicial posts while some States permitted fresh law graduates to enter the judiciary directly.

The Court considered practical experience at the Bar important for producing competent and independent judicial officers and directed the States to prescribe three years’ practice as an essential qualification.

Stage 2: The Three-Year Requirement Was Removed

The position subsequently changed.

The Shetty Commission, constituted in 1996, examined the qualifications required for entry into the judicial service. Its report recommended doing away with the three-year practice requirement, partly because legal education itself had evolved and practical training had become a more important component of modern law courses.

The Commission also reasoned that an intensive period of judicial training after recruitment could potentially provide the practical preparation required for judicial service.

The Supreme Court accepted this changed approach in the Third AIJA Case in 2002, effectively removing the mandatory three-year practice requirement and allowing fresh law graduates to compete for entry-level judicial service.

Stage 3: Supreme Court Restored Three Years in 2025

The Supreme Court revisited the issue in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 735, decided on 20 May 2025.

A three-Judge Bench restored the requirement of three years’ practice at the Bar as an eligibility condition for candidates seeking to appear for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

The Court’s reasoning focused heavily on the value of practical experience before a person assumes judicial office. It considered courtroom exposure, interaction with litigants and advocates, practical understanding of procedure and familiarity with the justice-delivery system important aspects of preparation for judicial service.

The judgment also provided mechanisms for recognising certain Law Clerk experience and directed that the required practice be appropriately certified.

Stage 4: The 2026 Bhumika Trust Judgment

The 2025 decision was followed by review petitions and other proceedings challenging or seeking clarification of the three-year requirement.

One of the connected matters was filed by Bhumika Trust, which raised issues concerning persons with disabilities and the interaction between the three-year practice requirement and the earlier judgment concerning recruitment of visually impaired candidates in judicial services.

The Supreme Court also considered review petitions challenging the mandatory three-year practice requirement itself.

The Court’s majority concluded that the objective underlying the practice requirement remained valid, but that practical judicial competence need not necessarily be acquired entirely through three years of conventional Bar practice before the examination.

According to the majority, practical exposure could be achieved through a combination of:

• Actual practice at the Bar;
• Structured training at a State Judicial Academy; and
• Supervised Law Clerkship under judicial officers.

The Central Idea of the 2026 Judgment

The majority made an important distinction between two questions.

This distinction is at the heart of the new framework. The Court did not reject the importance of practical experience; instead, it changed the way that experience may be acquired and recognised.

What Happens During the Transitional Period?

The Court created a special transitional regime for recruitment advertisements issued after the 2025 judgment and up to 31 March 2027.

During this period:

• All law graduates are eligible to apply, notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement.
• For the purpose of the transitional arrangement, candidates are deemed to have completed one year of active practice.
• Candidates are not required to submit a separate Certificate of Practice for this deemed year.

This arrangement was intended to address the uncertainty faced by fresh and recent law graduates who had planned their education and careers under the earlier eligibility framework.

The Court also sought to ensure that the transition would not compromise the need for practical preparation before independent judicial work. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

What Happens After 1 April 2027?

The Supreme Court has prescribed a new long-term framework for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). For recruitment advertisements issued on or after 1 April 2027, a candidate must possess at least one year of actual practice in the District Courts before appearing for the judicial service examination.

This represents a substantial modification of the earlier three-year requirement. The Court has retained the importance of practical legal exposure, but has reduced the amount of mandatory pre-examination practice and supplemented it with structured post-selection training and clerkship.

The New Civil Judge Eligibility Framework

How Will the One Year of Practice Be Verified?

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the requirement is for actual practice, not merely the formal fact of Bar enrolment.

A candidate appearing in a recruitment cycle governed by the post-1 April 2027 framework must submit a Certificate of Practice evidencing completion of the required one year of actual practice in the District Courts.

The Court directed that the High Courts prescribe an appropriate mechanism for recording the candidate’s presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings.

The purpose is to ensure that the practice requirement represents genuine exposure to litigation and court proceedings rather than a purely formal period of enrolment.

What Happens After Selection?

The Supreme Court has introduced a structured training model for successful candidates. The objective is to ensure that practical judicial competence is developed through institutional training and supervised exposure rather than relying exclusively on prior private practice.

Step 1: One Year at the State Judicial Academy

Selected candidates will undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy.

This period is intended to familiarise trainee judicial officers with the functioning of courts, judicial procedure, legal administration, judgment writing, courtroom conduct and the responsibilities associated with the exercise of judicial power.

Step 2: One Year of Structured Law Clerkship

The Judicial Academy training is followed by a further one-year structured Law Clerkship.

The Court has divided this period into two stages:

• First six months: Law Clerkship under the supervision of Principal District/District & Sessions Judges or Members of the Higher Judicial Services.
• Next six months: Law Clerkship under the supervision of a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court.

This supervised exposure is intended to familiarise trainee judicial officers with actual court proceedings, judicial discipline, evaluation of submissions, procedural law and the preparation of judicial orders.

Why Has the Supreme Court Included Law Clerkship?

The Court recognised that a courtroom can itself function as a profound learning environment. A structured clerkship places the trainee in close proximity to judges and exposes them to the practical aspects of adjudication.

Through clerkship, a trainee can observe:

• How court proceedings are conducted.
• How submissions of advocates are evaluated.
• How procedural law operates in actual litigation.
• How case files are analysed.
• How judicial orders are structured and prepared.
• The standards of courtroom decorum and judicial conduct.
• The manner in which judges interact with advocates and litigants.

The Court therefore treats Law Clerkship as a structured form of practical judicial education rather than merely administrative attachment.

What Is the Status of the Trainee Judicial Officer?

The candidates recruited under the transitional framework will initially function as Trainee Judicial Officers.

They will receive the facilities and other benefits ordinarily available to trainees at the concerned State Judicial Academy during the training period.

During the subsequent Law Clerkship, they will receive the same emoluments as admissible during their Judicial Academy training, without an additional allowance for the clerkship.

They do not automatically become regular Civil Judges merely by completing the training and clerkship. Their performance and suitability must be assessed.

Evaluation Before Regular Appointment

After completion of the structured Law Clerkship, the sitting High Court Judge under whose supervision the trainee has served must submit a reasoned evaluation report concerning the trainee’s performance and suitability.

If the evaluation is satisfactory, the Trainee Judicial Officer will be appointed to the regular judicial post and will thereafter receive the regular pay scale and service benefits attached to the position.

What Happens to Recruitment Advertisements Issued Up to 31 March 2027?

The Supreme Court has created a specific transition period to prevent hardship to candidates who had planned their careers under the earlier legal position.

For recruitment advertisements issued after the 2025 judgment and up to 31 March 2027, law graduates are permitted to apply notwithstanding the earlier three-year practice requirement.

For the purpose of this transitional arrangement, such candidates are deemed to have completed one year of practice.

They therefore do not have to complete an actual year of Bar practice before applying under this transitional regime.

However, successful candidates recruited through this route will still undergo the structured training and Law Clerkship prescribed by the Court.

The Five-Year Nature of the New Scheme

The Supreme Court has not presented the new training model as an arrangement that can simply continue indefinitely without review.

The scheme is to remain in operation for five years. After that period, the Court has directed that the quality of recruitment, effectiveness of training and clerkship, and the performance of officers recruited under the framework should be placed before the Court for consideration.

The scheme may therefore be revisited in light of actual experience.

What About the Three-Year Practice Rule of 2025?

The 20 May 2025 judgment in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. had restored the three-year Bar practice requirement for Civil Judge recruitment.

The Bhumika Trust judgment has now modified that earlier decision.

Why Did the Majority Modify the Earlier Rule?

The majority accepted the fundamental proposition that prior practical exposure to the functioning of courts is indispensable.

However, it concluded that judicial competence does not necessarily have to be acquired exclusively through three years of conventional practice at the Bar before appearing for the examination.

The Court considered a combination of actual practice, institutional judicial training and supervised Law Clerkship capable of providing the necessary practical exposure.

The result is therefore not a rejection of the reasoning behind practical experience. It is a restructuring of how that practical competence is obtained.

Justice K. Vinod Chandran’s Dissent

The judgment was not unanimous.

Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Augustine George Masih formed the majority, while Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissented.

Justice Chandran did not agree with relaxing the three-year practice requirement. His dissent emphasised the importance of genuine courtroom exposure and expressed the view that the earlier rule should not have been modified in the manner adopted by the majority.

His opinion is important for examination purposes because it provides the counter-argument to the majority’s approach: that the courtroom itself is the most meaningful training ground for a future judicial officer and that conventional Bar practice should not be diluted.

What Does This Mean for Fresh Law Graduates?

The practical impact is significant.

For recruitment advertisements falling within the transition period up to 31 March 2027, a fresh law graduate does not have to complete three years of practice before applying.

For recruitment advertisements issued from 1 April 2027 onward, the candidate will need one year of actual District Court practice before appearing for the examination.

This means that the future pathway is no longer simply:

Instead, for the future framework:

What Should Current RJS Aspirants Do?

The most important practical lesson is that candidates should not build their preparation strategy around outdated articles explaining the old three-year rule.

The relevant recruitment advertisement will determine which framework applies to a particular batch. Aspirants should therefore always check the applicable notification before deciding whether they are eligible to appear.

At the same time, candidates who need to complete practice can use the period productively by combining:

• Court attendance and practical legal work.
• Bare Act reading.
• RJS Prelims MCQ practice.
• Rajasthan-specific law preparation.
• Mains answer writing.
• Judgment reading and current legal developments.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

📘 Free Study Material for Judiciary Aspirants!

Download our FREE study material prepared by Delhi Law Academy’s expert faculty.

✅ Check Free Study Material