The Supreme Court has rejected the contention that post-graduation in law can be treated as equivalent to practice at the Bar for determining eligibility for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing review petitions challenging the Court’s May 20, 2025 judgment, which had restored the requirement of prior legal practice for entry-level judicial service.
While pronouncing the judgment, CJI Surya Kant said the contention that post-graduation should be considered equivalent to legal practice could not be accepted.
The Court, however, modified the manner in which the practice requirement will operate. By a 2:1 majority, with Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissenting, the Bench directed that candidates applying pursuant to recruitment notifications issued between May 20, 2025 and March 31,2027 would remain eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement.
Candidates selected through such recruitment processes will undergo one year of trainingat the State Judicial Academy, followed by one year of structured law clerkship. The Court has directed that the combined two-year period will be treated as equivalent to legal practice for the purpose of the eligibility requirement.
For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, however, candidates will be required to possess at least one year of actual legal practice before appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
The review petitions arose from the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment restoring the three-year practice requirement for candidates seeking direct recruitment to the subordinate judiciary. The Court had then held that candidates entering judicial service should have prior exposure to the functioning of courts and practical experience of legal proceedings.
While reaffirming that principle, the present judgment recognises that practical exposure can also be developed through a structured combination of institutional training and supervised law clerkship.
The Court also took note of the hardship caused to law graduates by the sudden restoration of the three-year practice requirement. For more than two decades, candidates had prepared for judicial service examinations under a regime that did not insist upon prior practice at the Bar.
The modified framework therefore seeks to balance the Court’s emphasis on practical courtroom experience with the need to avoid undue prejudice to candidates who had already entered the judicial recruitment pipeline under the earlier eligibility regime.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, however, dissented from the majority’s decision to modify the operation of the practice requirement.
The post Supreme Court rejects equating LLM with Bar practice for Civil Judge eligibility; modifies practice requirement appeared first on India Legal.