Key information
Summary
The Supreme Court entertained review petitions challenging its controversial May 2025 verdict that mandated a minimum of three years of active legal practice at the Bar to appear for entry-level Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations. Petitioners argued that the sudden imposition caused severe hardship to fresh law graduates, women, and economically disadvantaged candidates, effectively curtailing equal opportunity under Article 16 (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment) and forcing candidates into institutional delays.
Re-evaluating the policy framework, the 2:1 majority bench held that while baseline litigation exposure is indispensable before assuming judicial duties, a rigid three-year bar creates disproportionate entry barriers. To balance institutional competency with accessibility, the apex court reduced the mandatory practice window from three years to one year. To address immediate concerns, the Court introduced a Transitional Scheme: for all judicial notifications issued between May 20, 2025, and March 31, 2027, candidates are exempt from prior practice and are deemed qualified. Upon selection, these candidates will be appointed as Trainee Judicial Officers, undergoing one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy followed by a mandatory one-year structured law clerkship split evenly between District Judiciary and High Court judges.
For advertisements published after April 1, 2027, a baseline of one year of active practice verifiable via court participation certificates remains mandatory alongside the post-selection training block. Striking down absolute bar litigation rules as disproportionate, the apex court ordered all High Courts to amend their judicial service rules within three months, making this arrangement subject to periodic institutional review after five years.
