Three years to one: SC eases Civil Judge practice rule; one-year training and clerkship made mandatory

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has reduced the mandatory period of legal practice required for direct recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) from three years to one year, while introducing a one-year judicial academy training programme and a further one-year structured law clerkship.
The revised framework modifies the court's May 20, 2025 judgment, which had made three years of practice at the Bar a requirement for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service.
Under the new arrangement, selected candidates will first undergo one year of training at the State Judicial Academy. This will be followed by a one-year structured law clerkship. During the clerkship, candidates will work as law clerks for the first six months under the supervision of a Principal District Judge or members of the Higher Judicial Service, and for the next six months under sitting judges of the concerned High Court.

The court said the revised scheme would remain in force for five years from the date of the judgment. After that period, its functioning, including the quality of recruitment, the effectiveness of training and clerkship and the performance of judicial officers recruited under the scheme, can be reviewed if necessary.

The court also made transitional arrangements for candidates covered by judicial service notifications issued between May 20, 2025 and March 31, 2027. Such candidates will be deemed to have completed one year of actual practice for the purpose of eligibility.
For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, candidates will have to fulfil the one-year legal practice requirement.

The changes were made while considering review petitions challenging the three-year practice requirement introduced by the court in May 2025.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Augustine George Masih formed the majority, while Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissented.