The Supreme Court has directed all high courts to extend Civil Judge application deadlines to April 30, 2026, while affirming that the three-year practice requirement will remain unchanged. The Court indicated it will only consider implementation modalities, not abolition of the rule.
THE Supreme Court on Friday made clear that the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts will not be diluted, even as it agreed to examine how the rule should be implemented
While hearing review petitions challenging the rule, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran indicated that only the implementation modalities remain open for discussion.
The Court simultaneously directed all high courts to extend the deadline for Civil Judge (Junior Division) applications to April 30, 2026. This interim measure applies both to recruitment processes already advertised and to fresh notifications yet to be issued by State Public Service Commissions.
The direction came after the Court was informed that recruitment processes had already commenced in several states, leaving aspirants uncertain about their eligibility while the review proceedings continue.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, appearing for some petitioners, requested that the practice requirement be kept in abeyance pending reconsideration. The Bench refused.
The Chief Justice was categorical in his observations. The three-year condition, he said, had been settled by a coordinate Bench and deserved respect. The Court’s task now was limited to evolving suitable methods for giving effect to the requirement.
He observed that, “Ultimately, let’s be very clear. The practice condition will have to be there. There is the view taken by a Bench and we should respect that bench. The only issue is the modalities of giving effect to that.”
Yet even as the practice requirement was affirmed in principle, the Bench appeared divided on how strictly it should be applied. CJI Surya Kant questioned whether passive courtroom presence over three years amounted to genuine practice. An advocate sitting idle in one court or another, he observed, could hardly be said to have learned anything. He suggested that serving as free legal aid counsel might be one meaningful way to acquire the necessary experience.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran took a sharper tone. The entire push for removal, he said, came from coaching centres. He noted that he had personally conducted interviews for judicial posts and knew from experience what the requirement sought to address.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves countered that graduates from National Law Universities might abandon litigation altogether if forced to wait three years, though he acknowledged the exact numbers would need verification.
The Chief Justice offered a possible middle path. He suggested that candidates could be recruited early, retained within the system, and then put through rigorous training rather than being abandoned to the vagaries of three years in practice.
“You put the best of the talent, keep it in your kitty, and then you put them to training,” he observed. “For three years you abandon them that unless you go there and practice, I am not going to consider you, and in three years, God knows where they will be.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appearing as amicus curiae, placed four structured suggestions before the Bench.
The first was retention of the rule without modification.
Also read: Passive euthanasia: Article 21 and the right to die with dignity
The second proposed allowing women and persons with disabilities to appear for the examination without completing three years, provided they fulfilled the remaining practice period after clearing the exam but before proceeding to judicial academy training.
The third suggested a staggered introduction: zero years required in 2026, one year in 2027, two years in 2028, and the full three from 2029.
The fourth focused specifically on candidates with disabilities, recommending lower qualifying benchmarks, age relaxation, and directions to High Court Accessibility Committees to operationalise the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The amicus informed the Court that 7 of the 12 high courts that filed affidavits supported uniform retention of the rule.
The Delhi High Court committee warned that relaxation for one category would invite similar claims from others.
The J&K High Court committee drew a firm distinction between eligibility and suitability, holding that the three-year rule fell squarely within the former and could not be diluted for any category.
Only the Tripura High Court committee favoured scrapping the requirement entirely.
Senior Advocate Nandita Rao submitted that the condition had a long-term adverse impact on women professionals. While women might manage at the entry level, being pushed back at a later stage in their careers can be particularly damaging because that period is crucial for professional growth.
If forced to take a break of several years, she argued, women find it extremely difficult to regain career momentum. She added that such interruptions often lead to social pressure within families for women to abandon their professional paths altogether.
The Chief Justice, however, was sceptical about special relaxations for women and specially-abled candidates, commenting that such accommodations may not be practical.
The review petitions arise from the Supreme Court’s May 20, 2025 judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which restored the requirement that candidates must have a minimum of three years’ practice as advocates to be eligible for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts. The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising then Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, revived a practice condition that had been relaxed in 2002 following the Shetty Commission’s recommendations.
On February 10, 2026, the Court allowed the review petitions to be heard in open court, an exception to the usual practice of deciding review matters in chambers.
The petitioners have argued that the judgment disproportionately affects aspirants from economically weaker backgrounds, including SC, ST and OBC candidates, and creates a blanket disqualification for fresh law graduates without legislative backing. One plea has specifically sought exemption for persons with disabilities, citing structural barriers in accessing litigation work.
The matter will be taken up next week.
Case title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 001110/2025
Leave a Reply