The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether legal experience gained by law officers serving in government departments and public sector undertakings (PSUs) should be treated as equivalent to courtroom practice for the purpose of eligibility to the judicial service.
The issue has arisen in the backdrop of the Court’s 2025 decision restoring the mandatory requirement of three years’ legal practice for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The request was raised before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana during the hearing of the long-pending All India Judges Association matter.
The application, filed through Advocate-on-Record Anuja Pethia and argued by Advocate Vanshaja Shukla, seeks recognition of the professional experience of government law officers while calculating the three-year practice requirement.
The Bench observed that the application would be heard together with the pending review petitions challenging the 2025 judgment that reintroduced the minimum practice criterion.
Law Officers Seek Equal Treatment With Law Clerks
The applicants are law officers employed under the Government of India who intend to compete for appointments in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. They argue that the nature of their work substantially mirrors the practical legal exposure that the Supreme Court considered sufficient in the case of law clerks attached to judges and judicial officers.
According to the application, law officers are routinely involved in court-related work. Their responsibilities include coordinating litigation with panel advocates, attending court proceedings, preparing and vetting pleadings, advising departments on legal issues, ensuring statutory compliance, and handling various legal assignments arising from government administration.
These functions, the applicants contend, equip them with the professional competence and practical understanding expected from candidates entering the subordinate judiciary.
The plea further states that these officers are recruited through a rigorous competitive process and perform legal functions extending well beyond administrative litigation management. Denying recognition to their experience, while granting similar recognition to law clerks, is claimed to create an unreasonable distinction between two categories of legal professionals performing comparable legal work.
Plea Raises Equality Concerns
The application argues that excluding government law officers from the benefit of counting their service towards the eligibility requirement amounts to arbitrary classification. It submits that the objective behind insisting upon three years of legal practice is to ensure maturity, professional exposure, and readiness for judicial responsibilities.
If those objectives are already fulfilled through the work performed by law officers, refusing to acknowledge such experience would undermine the very rationale behind the rule.
The applicants also point to the socioeconomic realities faced by many aspiring judicial officers. Several candidates, the plea states, were compelled to accept salaried legal employment because of financial limitations and family responsibilities, even while continuing to prepare for judicial service examinations.
The application also notes that one of the applicants has more than 40 percent visual disability, underscoring the need for an inclusive interpretation of the eligibility condition.
Origin Of The Three-Year Practice Requirement
The present controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered in May 2025, which restored the requirement that candidates seeking appointment to entry-level judicial service posts must possess a minimum of three years’ practice as advocates.
The Court held that practical courtroom experience is essential for developing the maturity, confidence, and legal skills expected of trial court judges. It further clarified that the qualifying period would be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment with the Bar and that the restored requirement would operate prospectively in future recruitment exercises.
The decision marked a return to the position that existed before 2002, when the mandatory practice requirement had been dispensed with.
Review Petitions Challenge The Judgment
The 2025 ruling is presently under review before the Supreme Court. Among the review petitioners is advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, who has questioned the basis on which the three-year practice requirement was revived.
The review petition argues that the Supreme Court failed to adequately consider important recommendations made by the Shetty Commission, which had favoured dispensing with the practice requirement in view of the changing nature of legal education. According to the petitioner, compulsory internships, court visits, and practical legal training already form an integral part of the modern law curriculum, reducing the necessity of mandatory practice before entering judicial service.
It is also contended that newly appointed judicial officers undergo structured judicial training before assuming office, making prior practice less significant than the Court presumed.
The petitioner further argues that while the Supreme Court relied on affidavits filed by certain High Courts and State Governments supporting the restoration of the requirement, it did not fully examine contrary views expressed by the States of Nagaland, Tripura, and Chhattisgarh, as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court, all of which opposed reintroducing the eligibility condition.
Another significant ground raised in the review petition is the absence of empirical evidence. According to the petitioner, the judgment does not refer to any statistical data, academic research, or performance studies establishing that fresh law graduates perform inadequately as judicial officers. It is argued that several law graduates have successfully served in the judiciary after receiving institutional training despite having no prior legal practice.
Matter To Be Heard Alongside Review Cases
Following the issuance of notice in the review petitions, the Supreme Court earlier directed that they be heard in open court. The latest application filed by government law officers will now be considered as part of those proceedings.
The outcome of the proceedings could have significant implications for the eligibility criteria governing recruitment to the subordinate judiciary, particularly on the question of whether professional legal service rendered outside independent advocacy can be treated as qualifying experience for the mandatory three-year practice requirement.
- Case Title: All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Case Number: W.P. (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
