Case Note & Summary
The matter before the Supreme Court of India arose from a writ petition and connected review petitions and interlocutory applications concerning the eligibility criterion for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner, Bhumika Trust, filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2025 seeking clarification on the interplay between the judgment under review dated 20.05.2025 in All India Judges Association v. Union of India and the judgment in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services. Three review petitions were filed seeking recall of the directions in the judgment under review that mandated a minimum of three years' practice at the Bar as an eligibility criterion. Two interlocutory applications sought directions that the period spent for higher education in law be counted towards the three-year practice requirement. The background traced the evolution of the practice requirement. In the Second AIJA Case decided on 24.08.1993, the Supreme Court directed all States to prescribe three years' practice as a lawyer as an essential qualification for recruitment as a judicial officer at the lowest rung, relying on constitutional provisions requiring advocate practice for higher judicial appointments. Pursuant to this, the Government of India constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission under Justice K.J. Shetty on 21.03.1996, which recommended removing the three-year practice requirement due to changes in legal education, including integrated five-year courses with practical training. The Law Commission in its 117th Report also supported permitting fresh law graduates with intensive training. In the Third AIJA Case decided on 21.03.2002, the Supreme Court accepted the Shetty Commission's recommendation and reversed the mandatory three-year practice rule, allowing fresh graduates to enter judicial service with recommended training of at least one year, preferably two years. This position held for over two decades. In 2023, the Supreme Court reconsidered the issue in the matter that culminated in the judgment under review dated 20.05.2025. After considering responses from every High Court and State Government and relying on the 117th Law Commission Report, the Shetty Commission, and the Second and Third AIJA Cases, the Court restored the requirement of minimum three years' practice at the Bar. The Court found broad consensus among High Courts that fresh graduates lacked familiarity with court procedure, court decorum, and faced behavioural complaints, and that academic brilliance alone was insufficient. It held that first-hand court experience cannot be substituted by books or pre-service training. In the instant proceedings, the Court allowed I.A. No. 163059/2025 and granted permission to file the review petition. The substantive prayers for clarification and review of the three-year practice requirement, as well as the plea to count higher legal education period towards the requirement, were under consideration in the present batch. The available excerpt did not record final orders on those substantive prayers.
Headnote
A) Judicial Appointments - Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility - Minimum Practice at Bar - Constitution of India, Articles 233(2), 217(2)(b), 124(3)(b) - In the Second AIJA Case, this Court directed all States to prescribe three years' practice as a lawyer as an essential qualification for recruitment to the lowest rung of judicial service, reasoning that if experience at Bar was indispensable for higher judiciary, it could not be dispensed with at entry level - Held that the purpose was to ensure recruitment of competent, independent and honest judicial officers and strengthen administration of justice and public confidence (Paras 4-7). B) Judicial Appointments - Qualification Reforms - Removal of Practice Requirement - Shetty Commission Report and Third AIJA Case - The Shetty Commission recommended deletion of three-year practice requirement due to evolution of legal education, including integrated five-year courses with practical training; This Court in Third AIJA Case reversed the mandatory rule, allowing fresh law graduates to enter judicial service with recommended training of not less than one year preferably two years (Paras 8-14). C) Judicial Appointments - Restoration of Practice Requirement - Judgment under Review 2025 - All India Judges Association v. Union of India, I.A. No. 93974/2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989 - This Court restored minimum three years' practice at Bar based on consensus among most High Courts and deficiencies observed in fresh graduates, including lack of court procedure familiarity, decorum issues, and behavioural complaints - Held that first-hand experience of court system cannot be substituted by books or pre-service training, and that exposure to courts, litigants, and briefs educates candidates about duties of judicial stakeholders (Paras 15-22). D) Practice and Procedure - Review and Clarification - Permission to File Review Petition - Supreme Court Rules, Order XLVII - In the instant batch, the Court allowed I.A. No. 163059/2025 and granted permission to file Review Petition against the Judgment under Review, while Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2025 sought clarification and I.A. Nos. 336090 and 336091/2025 sought counting of higher legal education period towards practice requirement - Held that permission to file review petition was granted as preliminary order (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Interplay between Judgment under Review dated 20.05.2025 and In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services; whether directions mandating minimum three years' practice at Bar for Civil Judge (Junior Division) should be recalled or reviewed; whether period spent for higher education in law should be counted towards the three-year practice requirement; whether minimum three years' practice should be restored as eligibility criterion
Final Decision
The Court allowed I.A. No. 163059/2025 and granted permission to file the Review Petition. The substantive prayers for clarification and review of the three-year practice requirement, as well as the plea to count higher legal education period towards the requirement, were under consideration in the present batch; the available excerpt did not record final orders on those substantive prayers.
Law Points
- Minimum three years practice at Bar as eligibility criterion for Civil Judge (Junior Division)
- purpose to ensure recruitment of competent independent and honest judicial officers
- experience at Bar indispensable
- constitutional analogy from Articles 233(2) 217(2)(b) 124(3)(b)
- fresh law graduates lack court procedure familiarity
- academic brilliance not substitute for court exposure
- first-hand court experience cannot be replaced by books or training
- broad consensus among High Courts
- Shetty Commission recommendation to remove practice requirement
- Third AIJA Case reversal
- Judgment under Review restoration
