Though the Supreme Court refused to review its May 2025 judgment mandating prior legal practice before entering judicial service, it substituted the 3-year practice requirement with one year. The selected candidates will have to undergo training at the judicial academy for one year and a further one-year clerkship under the supervision of Judges.

Also, for candidates in the transition period from May 20, 2025 (the date of the original judgment) till March 31, 2027, the Court waived the practice requirement. The law graduates in this transition period are eligible to appear for Civil Judge Junior Division exams without any practice requirement. However, such candidates, upon selection, will be appointed only as trainee judicial officers for one year. They also need to undergo a further period of one year structured clerkship.

The Court held that the sudden restoration of the three-year practice rule without any transitional arrangement has visited hardship on young lawyers and law graduates and hence, a limited intervention is warranted.

For candidates in exams to be notified after April 1, 2027, the requirement will be one year of practice, and after selection, one year of training and one year of clerkship.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice August George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran(dissenting) pronounced its verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier judgment which made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

Pronouncing the verdict, the Chief Justice stated that the bench did not see any reason to interfere with the foundational reasoning in the judgment that a candidate must have exposure to the legal profession before joining the judiciary. The bench however expressed the view that the requirement of prior experience must have a reasonable nexus so that no hardship is caused.

The Court also stressed that the scheme contained in its directions is not immutable, and can be revisited after assessment once it has operated for a reasonable period.

"Judicial recruitment is an evolving process, and the effect of the present arrangement can be properly assessed only after it has operated for a reasonable period. A period of three years would provide sufficient institutional experience to evaluate whether the combination of limited prior practice, structured training and supervised clerkship is achieving the desired objective. This Court may thereafter revisit the scheme on the basis of material concerning the quality of recruitment, performance of trainees, adequacy of training, and other relevant indicators", the Court held.

Thus, the Court held that the scheme will operate for five years from today, and thereafter, if necessary, can be revisited based on the institutional experience gained in this period. "Therefore, scheme contained in these directions shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of this judgment. Upon completion of the aforesaid period of five years, the working of this scheme, including the quality of recruitment, the nature and efficacy of training and clerkship, the performance of officers recruited under the scheme and such other empirical material as may be relevant, shall be placed before this Court for its consideration, and the scheme shall thereafter be revisited, if necessary", said the Court.

The directions from the majority judgment

The CJI's judgment issued the following directions :

Candidates in judicial exam notifications between May 20, 2025 till March 31 2027 are eligible regardless of prior experience but will be appointed only as trainee judicial officers for 1 year. Graduates in this period will be eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement, having regard to the fact that more than one year has elapsed since the judgment under review was pronounced.

Such candidates, for the purposes of their applications, will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice and shall not be required to produce a certificate of practice in respect of the said period.

Upon appointment, they will be designated as Trainee Judicial Officers. They shall undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy.

Upon successful completion of the aforesaid training, the Trainee Judicial Officers shall undergo a further period of one year of structured law clerkship. The first six months shall be spent as a law clerk under the supervision of the Principal District Judge or members of the Higher Judicial Service, and the remaining six months under the supervision of sitting judges of the concerned High Court.

During the trainee period at the State Judicial Academy, the trainees will get emoluments equal to half of the gross remuneration of a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

During the clerkship, they will get emoluments payable during training at the State Judicial Academy.

Upon completion of the law clerkship, a sitting judge of the High Court under whose supervision the Trainee Judicial Officer has served shall submit a reasoned evaluation report concerning the progress and suitability of the trainee.

Directions which will apply after the transition period

For the period following the transition period, that is, for notifications/advertisements issued on or after April 1, 2027, the following directions shall govern recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division):

Candidates seeking to appear for the examination for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall possess at least one year of active practice.

Such practice shall be subject to verification through issuance of a certificate of practice, which shall not be issued unless the candidate's presence and participation in effective judicial proceedings have been duly recorded in accordance with the mechanism prescribed by the Court.

Upon such evaluation report being found satisfactory, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall be appointed to the regular post in the field and shall thereafter be entitled to the regular pay scale and other service benefits attached to the post.

The candidates shall undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by six months of law clerkship under the District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service, and thereafter another six months of law clerkship under a sitting judge of the concerned High Court, in terms of the directions that we have already explained in detail.

The above arrangements are not immutable and will be revisited after a period of time. "The effect of the present arrangement can be assessed only after it has operated for a reasonable period. A period of 3 years provides sufficient institutional experience to evaluate whether the scheme is achieving the desired objective. The court may thereafter revisit the scheme based on relevant indicators," the CJI stated.

Justice Vinod Chandran dissents

Justice Vinod Chandran stated that he was dissenting. "With due respect, I have not been able to concur. The review petitions are dismissed," he pronounced.

The Court had heard submissions from various counsel, intervenors and the amicus curiae, and reserved the judgment on July 28. The Court also heard a writ petition seeking the relaxation of the 3-year rule for persons with disabilities.