Background
In May 2025, the Supreme Court (in the 6th All India Judges’ Association matter) restored a minimum 3 years’ practice at the Bar as an eligibility condition for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. Multiple Review Petitions, a fresh Writ Petition by Bhumika Trust, and interlocutory applications challenged this direction, seeking either complete recall or suitable modifications/clarifications (including counting higher legal education and accommodating persons with disabilities).
Majority Opinion (CJI Surya Kant & Justice Masih)
The Court did not overturn the fundamental requirement of prior court exposure but substantially modified its implementation to address hardships faced by recent graduates, women, and persons with disabilities.
Key Directions:
A. Transitional Period (Notifications issued after the May 2025 judgment up to 31.03.2027)
- All law graduates are eligible to apply (no 3-year practice bar).
- Candidates are deemed to have completed 1 year of practice.
- Selected candidates will be designated “Trainee Judicial Officers” and must undergo:
- 1 year intensive training at the State Judicial Academy (counts as 1 year practice; paid half the remuneration of a JMFC).
- 1 year structured Law Clerkship (6 months under District/Higher Judicial Service judges + 6 months under a sitting High Court Judge) — also counts as 1 year practice.
- After satisfactory evaluation by the High Court Judge, they are appointed to the regular cadre with full pay and benefits.
B. Post-Transition Period (Notifications on or after 01.04.2027)
- Candidates must have at least 1 year of actual verified practice in District Courts (Certificate of Practice mandatory).
- Selected candidates must still complete the same 1-year Academy training + 1-year Law Clerkship as above.
Other Important Points
- States (in consultation with High Courts) must amend Rules within 3 months.
- Scheme to remain in force for 5 years, after which the Court will review its efficacy on the basis of empirical data.
- Directions adequately address concerns of persons with disabilities.
- Applications seeking to count higher legal education towards practice were dismissed.
Dissenting Opinion (Justice K. Vinod Chandran)
Justice Chandran held that no review of the well-considered 3-year practice requirement was warranted. He emphasised that genuine courtroom exposure cannot be substituted by post-selection training alone, that judicial service is distinct from other civil services, and that the majority’s structured 2-year training regime would create practical difficulties, vacancies, and unequal treatment. He would have dismissed the Review Petitions.
Significance
This is a pragmatic via Lawcutor. The Court retained the principle that fresh graduates should not step into judicial office without any court exposure, while softening the abrupt impact of the 3-year rule through a time-bound transitional regime and rigorous post-selection training + clerkship. The 5-year sunset clause ensures future course-correction based on actual performance data.
CASE DETAILS:
Case Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors. (with connected Review Petitions in W.P. (C) No. 1022/1989)
Citation: 2026 INSC 904
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih (Majority); Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Dissenting)
Date: 21 August 2026
Click HERE for full JUDGMENT.
