Supreme Court Enforces Three-Year Advocacy Requirement for Judicial Service Candidates

The Supreme Court has reinstated a three-year advocacy requirement for candidates applying for entry-level judicial service positions, effective from May 20. This ruling aims to enhance the quality of judicial appointments but raises concerns about its impact on fresh law graduates, particularly women. Advocates argue that while the intention is commendable, the blanket requirement may unfairly penalize deserving candidates and exacerbate existing barriers for women in the legal field. The ruling has sparked discussions about the need for a more nuanced approach to judicial recruitment that considers individual capabilities and offers targeted support.

By Narendra Chaudhary May 21, 2025, 16:55 IST

Supreme Court's Landmark Decision

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reinstated the requirement for candidates seeking entry-level judicial service positions to have a minimum of three years of advocacy experience. This practice period will be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment. Importantly, this requirement will only apply to new recruitments starting from May 20 onward.

Implementation Details

The court clarified that this new rule will only affect future recruitment processes and will not interfere with ongoing selection procedures that are already in progress. The implementation will take effect from the next recruitment cycle.

New Certification Requirements

Under the updated regulations, candidates must present a certificate validated by either the Principal Judicial Officer of the relevant court or an advocate with a minimum of ten years of experience, also endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer. For those practicing in the Supreme Court or High Court, a certificate from a qualified advocate with over ten years of standing, endorsed by a court-designated officer, will suffice. Additionally, experience as a law clerk can be counted towards fulfilling the three-year requirement.

Background of the Requirement

Historically, many states mandated over three years of legal practice for eligibility in judicial services. However, a 2002 Supreme Court decision permitted fresh law graduates to apply for Munsiff-Magistrate roles. Recently, petitions were submitted to restore the experience requirement, supported by various High Courts advocating for the inclusion of only seasoned advocates.

Impact on Aspirants

Shailendra Singh, an advocate at the Supreme Court, shared his insights in an exclusive interview, stating, "This ruling will significantly affect fresh law graduates due to the perceived deficiencies or 'arrogance' of a few individuals who entered the judiciary without sufficient practical experience. The Supreme Court's observation that 'the appointment of fresh law graduates has led to several difficulties, as noted by multiple high courts,' indicates that some new entrants may lack essential practical understanding. However, applying a blanket three-year practice requirement to all aspiring judges, irrespective of their individual skills or potential, could be viewed as excessive."

"Not every fresh law graduate is devoid of practical insight. Many possess outstanding analytical abilities, theoretical knowledge, and a strong sense of justice that could be quickly refined within the judicial system itself," he added. "Targeted initiatives like training, mentorship, or probation could be more effective than a universal requirement for legal practice experience. This strategy could bridge practical gaps without imposing undue burdens on candidates aiming for judicial careers."

Challenges for Women Aspirants

Shailendra pointed out that this requirement could create additional challenges for women, compounding the obstacles they already face in the legal profession. Societal expectations, marriage, financial instability, and domestic responsibilities may hinder their ability to fulfill the practice requirement, potentially discouraging them from pursuing a judicial career.

Concerns About the New Rule

Despite the challenges, Shailendra acknowledged the Supreme Court's intention to improve judicial quality. However, he remarked, "The blanket enforcement of a three-year mandatory practice period seems to be a blunt tool that could unintentionally harm many deserving candidates due to the perceived shortcomings of a few. More critically, it disproportionately affects women aspirants by intersecting with deeply rooted societal pressures and practical challenges in navigating the legal field."

"A more nuanced approach, perhaps emphasizing rigorous training, mentorship, and addressing the specific challenges faced by women in the legal profession, might have been a more just and effective solution," Shailendra concluded.