Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Treat Post-Graduation As Equivalent To Practice At Bar For Civil Judge Recruitment
Amisha Shrivastava
21 Aug 2026 1:11 PM IST
The Supreme Court has rejected the contention that post-graduation in law should be treated as equivalent to practice at the Bar for the purpose of eligibility for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran rejected the contention while deciding review petitions challenging the Court's May 20, 2025 judgment restoring the requirement of prior legal practice for entry-level judicial service.
The Chief Justice, while pronouncing the judgment, said: “The contention that post-graduation should be treated equivalent to practice, that we have not been able to accept.”
The Court, however, by 2:1 (Justice Chandran dissenting),modified the manner in which the practice requirement would operate. For recruitment notifications issued between May 20, 2025 and March 31, 2027, all law graduates will be eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement.
Candidates selected through these recruitments will undergo one year of training at the State Judicial Academy followed by one year of structured law clerkship, with the two years treated as equivalent to practice for the purpose of the requirement.
For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, candidates will be required to have at least one year of actual practice before appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
The review petitions challenged the May 2025 judgment which had restored the three-year practice requirement for candidates seeking direct entry into the judicial service. The Court had held that prior exposure to the functioning of courts was desirable for a person entering judicial service.
In the present judgment, the Court maintained that conclusion but held that practical experience could be acquired through a structured combination of institutional training and supervised law clerkship. It also noted that the sudden restoration of the three-year requirement had caused hardship to law graduates who had prepared for judicial examinations under the regime prevailing for more than two decades.
Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 001110/2025
Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases
