The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that candidates must have at least three years of experience as practising lawyers to qualify for entry-level judicial positions as Munsiff Magistrates. This decision reinstated the minimum practice requirement that had been removed in 2002.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran noted that permitting recent law graduates to enter the judiciary without hands-on legal experience had resulted in various problems.
The Supreme Court ruled that the requirement of at least three years of legal practice to be eligible for the civil judges (junior division) examination would be reinstated. It directed all state governments to revise their rules accordingly, mandating that candidates must have a minimum of three years' experience to appear for the exam.
The court further specified that this legal experience must be verified by a lawyer with at least a decade of practice. It also stated that time spent working as a law clerk for judges could count toward the required experience. Additionally, the court emphasized that new entrants to the judicial service must complete a year of training before they are permitted to preside over court proceedings, India Today reported.
The Supreme Court explained that its decision was based on the observation that appointing fresh law graduates as judicial officers over the past two decades—without any prior experience at the Bar—had not yielded positive results. The bench noted that this practice had caused several issues within the judicial system.
However, the court clarified that the reinstated rule would only apply to future recruitment cycles and would not impact any ongoing selection processes.
Originally, many states had required legal practice experience for entry-level judicial posts, but the Supreme Court eliminated that condition in 2002, allowing new law graduates to apply directly for Munsiff Magistrate positions. In response, various petitions were later filed urging the court to restore the practice requirement. Several High Courts also supported reintroducing the minimum practice requirement.