The Supreme Court, through a divided Bench decision delivered on August 21, 2026, modified the three-year Bar practice requirement for entry into the judicial service below the level of District Judge. The judgment, delivered over fifteen months after the requirement had been restored in 2025, alters the eligibility conditions for candidates appearing in judicial services examinations.
According to the majority judgment, for recruitments notified on or after April 1, 2027, candidates will be required to complete one year of actual practice at the Bar. Upon selection, they must undergo one year of training at a State Judicial Academy followed by one year of structured clerkship. This framework replaces the earlier condition of three years of prior Bar practice as a prerequisite for appearing in the examination.
The Court also introduced a transitional measure, permitting candidates to apply for judicial services examinations without satisfying the prior practice requirement during the interim period. This relaxation applies to notifications issued before April 1, 2027, allowing aspirants to participate in the selection process despite not having completed the previously mandated three years of practice.
The Bench traced the evolution of the practice requirement, noting that since 1993, the condition has undergone four changes: it was introduced, removed in 2002, restored in 2025, and modified again in the present judgment. The 2025 judgment had originally prescribed three years of Bar practice as a mandatory eligibility condition for appearing in the civil judge examination.
The Court examined the constitutional validity of its intervention in recruitment rules, particularly in light of Article 234 of the Constitution. Article 234 vests the power to make rules for recruitment to the judicial service below the level of District Judge in the Governor, exercised in consultation with the High Court and the State Public Service Commission. The judgment acknowledged that the Supreme Court has traditionally adopted a hands-off approach in such matters, citing precedents like P.U. Joshi and Zahoor Ahmad Rather, which held that prescribing qualifications and eligibility conditions falls within the domain of the competent authority and that courts cannot substitute their own view of what qualifications ought to be.
The judgment further referenced Sandeep Shriram Warade, where the Court observed that, under the guise of judicial review, a court cannot ‘sit in the chair of the appointing authority’ and decide what is best for the employer. Despite this general principle, the Court noted a departure in judicial service matters, referencing the All India Judges Association proceedings that began in 1989. Through continuing mandamus, the Supreme Court has issued directions on recruitment, promotion, seniority, pay, and other conditions of service of the subordinate judiciary, including alterations to entry conditions.
The Court acknowledged the objection that such directions may encroach upon fields assigned to the executive or rule-making authorities. However, it relied on the foundation of the All India Judges Association case, which posited that its directions were intended to secure the performance of obligatory duties and should not be treated as an encroachment upon legislative or executive power. The directions were described as transitional measures towards evolving a national policy for the judiciary, which may explain the Court’s continuing jurisdiction in such matters.
The Bench distinguished between requiring a constitutional authority to discharge its obligation and choosing, on its behalf, the specific contents of the rule it must frame. It noted that the proceedings leading to the 2025 judgment did not involve a consideration of restoring the three-year practice rule. The applications before the Court at that time pertained to LDCE quotas, promotions, and allied issues in the judicial service. However, in April 2023, the Court formulated a question regarding the restoration of three years of practice, labelling it an ‘ancillary question’. This question was eventually answered in 2025 by prescribing three years’ practice as a prerequisite for appearing in the examination.
The judgment also referred to varying responses from different High Courts on the issue, indicating a lack of uniformity in state-level approaches to the prior practice requirement. The current modification seeks to standardize the eligibility condition while introducing a phased transition to mitigate disruption for ongoing aspirants.