Supreme Court Clarifies 3-Year Practice Rule: Judicial Officers Appointed Before May 2025 Stand Exempt

A major clarification from the Supreme Court has brought relief to thousands of sitting judicial officers across India who were apprehensive about the newly introduced mandatory three-year practice requirement for entry into the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre. In a significant order dated 18 November 2025, the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India issued a categorical clarification that judicial officers who joined service before 20 May 2025 shall not be required to fulfil the three-year practice criterion when applying to judicial services of another State, provided they have completed three years of judicial service in their present cadre.

This clarification resolves uncertainties arising from the Court’s earlier judgment delivered on 20 May 2025, which had directed that candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division) must possess three years’ experience as an advocate before they are eligible to sit for the examination. The earlier ruling had caused anxiety among many existing judges who had entered the service prior to this requirement and did not have the mandated bar practice experience at the time of their original recruitment.

The latest order ensures continuity in service, protects legitimate expectations of serving judicial officers, and upholds the principle that newly introduced eligibility norms should not unfairly affect previously appointed officers.

Background: The Three-Year Practice Requirement

The controversy traces back to the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20.05.2025, wherein the Court, while deciding a batch of applications in the long-pending All India Judges Association matter, introduced a critical new requirement:

For appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), every applicant must possess minimum three years’ experience as an advocate.

The rationale behind the new rule was to ensure that new entrants to the judicial service have adequate exposure to grassroots legal practice before they take on the judicial role. The Court emphasised that firsthand experience in courtrooms enhances a judge’s understanding of litigation realities and improves the quality of justice delivered at the trial court level.

However, the judgment triggered an immediate concern:

• Could existing judicial officers—who entered the service when no such requirement existed—be barred from applying to other State Judicial Services later?
• Would their lack of prior bar practice retrospectively disqualify them?

Such officers often appear for examinations in other States to relocate due to personal, administrative, or career considerations. The ambiguity threatened to stagnate their mobility and prospects.

Facts Leading to the Clarification

The Supreme Court’s clarification emerged from an application filed by a judicial officer whose circumstances highlighted the practical difficulties arising from the newly introduced three-year practice requirement.

The applicant was provisionally enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi on 28 July 2018 and subsequently joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service as a Civil Judge (Entry Level) on 19 November 2019. At the time of her appointment, there was no mandatory requirement to complete three years of practice at the Bar. Therefore, she, like many others, entered the judiciary directly after enrolment.

Over the years, she continued to apply for judicial service examinations of other States—an entirely common practice among judicial officers seeking relocation or better opportunities. However, after the Supreme Court’s judgment of 20 May 2025, which made three years’ bar practice compulsory for applying to Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, she feared that this new eligibility condition—if applied retrospectively—would bar her from sitting for recruitment processes in other States.

Her apprehension stemmed from the possibility that her years of judicial service would be disregarded and she would be unfairly penalised for not fulfilling a requirement that did not exist when she entered the service. Recognising that her situation involved “peculiar facts,” the Court considered it necessary to issue a clarification to prevent unintended hardship and to ensure that officers similarly placed were not disadvantaged.

This led to the operative clarification exempting all judicial officers appointed before 20 May 2025 from the three-year practice requirement, subject to completion of three years’ judicial service in their current State.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court acknowledged that:

1. At the time the applicant entered judicial service (2019), no practice requirement existed.
2. She had already completed six years of service as a Judicial Officer.
3. The May 2025 judgment was prospective in nature.
4. Applying it retrospectively would lead to serious injustice and defeat the principle of legitimate expectation.

The Court noted:

“Since the applicant has already worked as a Judicial Officer for a period of six years, the said condition would not be applicable to her.”

This observation laid the foundation for a broader clarification applicable to all similarly placed officers.

The Operative Clarification: Relief for Pre-May 2025 Appointees

The Supreme Court then issued a general clarification applicable to all judicial officers appointed prior to the introduction of the new rule:

"In case of Judicial Officers, who are appointed prior to the passing of the judgment dated 20.05.2025, the requirement of three years’ practice at the Bar would not be necessary, in case they apply for Judicial Services in any other State. This is, however, subject to them completing three years’ service in their present State."

What This Means

• Exemption Granted: All judicial officers who joined service before 20 May 2025 are automatically exempted from the mandatory three-year bar practice requirement.
• Condition of 3 Years’ Service: However, they must have completed three years of actual judicial service in their current State before applying to another State’s judicial service.
• Prospective Application: The three-year practice rule is prospective, meaning it applies only to fresh candidates entering service after 20 May 2025.
• Mobility Protected: Sitting judges can continue applying to other State judicial examinations without fear of disqualification.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s clarification dated 18 November 2025 brings long-awaited stability and fairness to the judicial recruitment framework. By exempting judicial officers appointed before 20 May 2025 from the mandatory three-year practice rule—subject to completion of three years of service—the Court has ensured:

• No retrospective hardship,
• Protection of legitimate expectations,
• Uniformity across States,
• Continued opportunities for serving judges, and
• A balanced path forward for judicial reforms.

The decision strikes a crucial balance: while insisting on professional experience for new entrants, it safeguards the careers of those who joined when no such requirement existed. Ultimately, this promotes both fairness and institutional integrity.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams