SC Cuts Law Practice Criterion From 3 to 1 Year, Adds Training & Clerkship

By Sanjeev Sirohi Corporate Law Articles August 22, 2026

SC Reduces Law Practice Criterion From 3 Years To I Year But Adds Clerkship And Training Criteria

In a very significant pronouncement which is palpably going to affect lakhs of aspirants who are preparing for judicial services or will prepare in the forthcoming coming days ahead, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Bhumika Trust v Union of India and Others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2025 with others and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 904 in the exercise of its civil original jurisdiction that was pronounced most recently on 21.08.2026 upheld its May 2025 judgment that had mandated law practice as a condition for entry into judicial service but reduced the experience prescribed at the bar from 3 years to 1 year. Pertinently, we need to note that the top court has also mandated that the candidates who succeed at the judicial service exam will have to undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy followed by six months’ clerkship under the District Judge/Higher Judicial Service and six months under a sitting High Court Judge. Ostensibly, this will serve as an effective substitute for the remaining 2 years practice which was prescribed by the earlier judgment.

But while adding a key rider, it has been added that these rules will become applicable only from April 1, 2027. To put it differently, we see that the top court has granted a key exemption with regard to a transition period running up to March 31, 2027. For candidates applying within that date, no law practice experience would be required and they shall be deemed to have completed one-year law practice. However, they have to undergo the training and clerkship as prescribed.

We need to note that this robust judgment was passed by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr CJI Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih who gave the fresh judgment on a batch of review petitions challenging the May 2005 judgment. But Hon’ble Mr Justice K Vinod Chandran who was also a part of the Bench dissented and upheld the May 2005 verdict in entirety but what will prevail is what is held by the majority Bench headed by CJI who introduced key changes as mentioned hereinabove.

At the very outset, this majority judgment authored by the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr CJI Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “I.A. No. 163059/2025 is allowed, and permission to file Review Petition is granted.”

As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 2 stating that, “The instant matters seek either clarification or review of this Court’s judgement dated 20.05.2025 passed in I.A. Nos. 93974/2019; 72900, 73015, and 40695/2021; and 50269 and 201893/2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022/1989 (Judgement under Review), whereby a minimum of 3 years’ practice at the Bar was mandated as an eligibility criteria to be considered for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).”

Plainly speaking, the Bench observes in para 43 that, “We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us, the material placed on record by the High Courts, the Law Universities/National Law Universities, the learned Amicus Curiae, and the reasons which weighed with this Court in the Judgment under Review. At the outset, we are not persuaded that the Judgment under Review requires to be reconsidered on the fundamental question whether some prior exposure to the working of courts is desirable for a person seeking entry into the judicial service. In our view, the reasons postulated by this Court in restoring the requirement retain considerable force.

DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSION

Most significantly and resultantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 73 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In light of the above discussion, we consider it appropriate to issue the following directions, which would apply to all recruitment notification/advertisement(s) issued to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the transitional period, i.e., notification/advertisement(s) issued after the Judgement under Review up to 31.03.2027:

(i) All law graduates shall 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 shall, for the purposes of their applications, be deemed to have completed one year of active practice. They shall not be required to furnish a separate Certificate of Practice in support of the said deemed period;

(ii) Candidates selected pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment shall, upon appointment, be designated as “Trainee Judicial Officers” and shall undergo a compulsory period of one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy. This period shall be treated as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for the purposes of the three-year requirement;

(iii) During the period of such training, the Trainee Judicial Officers shall be paid a fixed emolument equivalent to one-half of the remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the concerned State. They shall, in addition, be entitled to the facilities and other benefits ordinarily made available to trainees at the concerned State Judicial Academy;

(iv) 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/District and Sessions Judges or Members of the Higher Judicial Services, and the remaining six months under the supervision of a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court;

(v) The aforesaid one-year period of Law Clerkship shall also be treated as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for the purposes of satisfying the three-year requirement;

(vi) During the period of Law Clerkship, the Trainee Judicial Officer shall be paid same emoluments as admissible during their training in State Judicial Academies, with no further allowance, etc.; and

(vii) Upon completion of the Law Clerkship, the sitting Judge of the High Court under whose supervision the Trainee Judicial Officer has served shall submit a reasoned evaluation report concerning the performance and suitability of the trainee. Upon such evaluation 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.”

Equally significant is that the Bench while continuing in the same vein propounds in para 74 directing and holding that, “We further direct that for the period following the transition period, i.e., notification/advertisement(s) issued on or after 01.04.2027, the following directions shall govern the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division):

(i) Every candidate seeking to appear for the examination for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall possess at least one year of actual practice from the source and certification as laid down in direction (vii) and (viii) of the Judgment under Review for now and thereafter as laid down hereinafter. 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, whether along with a senior member of the Bar with at least 10 years practice or otherwise, have been duly recorded in accordance with the mechanism to be prescribed by the High Courts;

(ii) The application of a candidate for recruitment to the judicial service from the aforesaid recruitment cycle shall be entertained only upon submission of the requisite certificate evidencing completion of one year of actual practice in the District Courts; and

(iii) Candidates selected pursuant to such recruitment shall, notwithstanding their one year of prior practice, undergo the same one-year period of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy followed by 6 months of Law Clerkship under the Principal District/District and Sessions Judges or Members of the Higher Judicial Services and thereafter another 6 months of Law Clerkship under a sitting Judge of the concerned High Court, in terms of directions (ii) to (vii) of Paragraph 73.”

For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 75 stating that, “For abundant caution, we reiterate that all notification/advertisement(s) issued already after the Judgment under Review was pronounced, as well as all notification/advertisement(s) to be issued hereafter, for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall conform to and will be governed by the aforesaid directions.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 76 that, “The State Governments, in consultation with respective jurisdictional High Courts, shall undertake and officially notify necessary amendments in the applicable Rules forthwith, and in any case, within three months from the date of this Judgment. The interim orders passed in these proceedings shall stand vacated.”

It is also worth noting that the Bench notes in para 77 that, “We may also observe that the directions issued hereinabove should adequately address the grievances expressed by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2025, particularly with regard to the need for appropriate accommodation for persons with disabilities.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 78 noting that, “In our considered opinion, it merits clarification that the scheme formulated herein should not be made immutable. 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.”

Quite significantly, it also merits noting that the Bench notes in para 79 that, “Therefore, scheme contained in these directions shall remain in force for a period of five years from the date of this judgment.”

Most rationally, the Bench mandates in para 80 directing and holding that, “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.”

Further, the Bench then directs and holds in para 81 that, “Interlocutory Application Nos. 336090 and 336091/2025 are, accordingly, dismissed.”

Finally, the Bench then also aptly directs and holds in para 82 that, “The Judgment under Review stands modified to the aforesaid extent, and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2025 as well as the Review Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.”

Cases Discussed