Should Mandatory Legal Practice for Civil Judges Be Enforced While SC Review is Pending?
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing its May 2025 verdict in the All India Judges Association versus Union of India case. This ongoing review raises the question of whether it is appropriate to enforce a three-year mandatory legal practice requirement for candidates applying for Civil Judge positions until the Supreme Court settles the matter. The review petition specifically challenges the order that made three years of legal practice compulsory, examining the "methods" of its implementation and the potential difficulties it poses for new law graduates.
A key aspect of the review is the Supreme Court's May 2025 decision, which reinstated the three-year experience rule for judicial officers to ensure maturity, effectively overturning a 2002 judgment. New law graduates who filed the review petition argue that this requirement limits opportunities and is constitutionally flawed, particularly since Article 233(2) mandates legal practice experience only for District Judges, not for junior judicial posts, and they seek direct entry. In a recent development, the Supreme Court in March 2026 ordered High Courts to extend the application deadlines for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, indicating a possible relaxation of the rule while the review is pending.
The debate continues with some advocating for new law graduates to have continued entry into the profession, while others, including various state bar councils, argue that practical experience is essential for effective judicial duties. Amidst this, the Telangana High Court has permitted judicial employees with law degrees to appear for the Civil Judge competitive examination. Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court, on April 16, 2026, issued a recruitment notification to fill 90 vacant Civil Judge posts statewide, stipulating that applicants must hold a law degree and have three years of legal practice experience in a court.
Source: CourtBeat News (Kannada)
