The Supreme Court on Friday modified its May 2025 verdict by reducing to one year the earlier mandatory requirement of three-year legal practice for law graduates for taking entry level judicial service examinations.
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Friday modified its May 2025 verdict by reducing to one year the earlier mandatory requirement of three-year legal practice for law graduates for taking entry level judicial service examinations.
However, the selected candidates will have to undergo training at the judicial academy and a further one year clerkship, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran said in a split decision of 2:1 while dismissing the review petition.
The bench said that candidates appearing in judicial exams notified between May 25, 2025 and March 31, 2027 are eligible regardless of prior experience.
It said such candidates, upon selection,will be appointed only as trainee judicial officers for one year and they would have to undergo a further period of one year structured clerkship.
On May 20 last year, the top court had barred fresh law graduates from appearing in the entry-level judicial services examination, fixing a minimum three-year law practice criterion.
Also Read: CBSE's three-language policy: Don't want children to come under any pressure, says SC
The top court held that the sudden restoration of the three-year practice rule without any transitional arrangement has created hardship for young lawyers and law graduates and hence, a limited intervention was warranted.
It said for candidates in exams to be notified after April 1, 2027, the new arrangement will be applicable.
The top court pronounced the verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging its May 2025 judgment, which mandated three years of legal practice for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).
CJI Kant, while pronouncing the majority verdict, said the bench did not see any reason to interfere with the fundamental reasoning in the earlier judgment that a candidate must have exposure to the legal profession before joining the judiciary.
It, however, said the requirement of prior experience must have a reasonable nexus and no hardship should be caused to young advocates and clarified that the earlier decision does not require reconsideration on the aspect of requirement of prior experience.
The top court had on July 28 reserved its decision on a batch of review petitions and writ petitions filed in the matter.
On March 13, the top court asked all the high courts to extend the last date for submission of applications for civil judge (junior division) posts to April 30.
It had sought the opinion of all the high courts, National Law Universities and other law schools on the three-year criterion for appearing in the entry-level judicial services examination.