AI generated image used for representative purposeNEW DELHI: In a key judgment on recruitment to the lower judiciary, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld its decision to require law graduates to have practical experience before entering judicial service, but reduced the mandatory practice requirement from three years to one year.The court also introduced a transition period under which candidates applying for judicial service till March 31, 2027 will not need to show any prior practice and will instead be treated as having completed one year of practice, as per a report by Bar and Bench.The court further directed that candidates selected for judicial service will have to undergo one year of intensive training at a State Judicial Academy followed by one year of structured clerkship, with six months under a district judge or member of the higher judicial service and six months under a sitting high court judge.The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran on review petitions challenging the court's May 2025 judgment.Justice Chandran dissented and upheld the earlier three-year requirement in full.What are the new rules for judicial service recruitment?Under the transition arrangement, candidates applying for judicial service till March 31, 2027 will not be required to have any prior law practice. They will be deemed to have completed one year of practice for the purpose of applying for the examination. If selected, they will be designated as Trainee Judicial Officers and will undergo one year of intensive training at the concerned State Judicial Academy.This will be followed by one year of law clerkship. The first six months will be spent under the Principal District Judge or members of the higher judicial service, while the remaining six months will be spent under sitting judges of the concerned high court. The candidates will receive emoluments during both the training and clerkship periods.After completing the clerkship, the high court judge under whose supervision the trainee worked will submit a report on the candidate's progress and suitability. If the report is satisfactory, the trainee will be appointed to the regular judicial post and will receive the regular pay and other service benefits.For candidates applying on or after April 1, 2027, the court has prescribed one year of actual law practice before applying for judicial service. They will also have to undergo the same one-year training and one-year clerkship after selection. The court said the practice requirement will have to be verified through a certificate, which will be issued only after the candidate's participation in actual court proceedings has been recorded, according to Bar and Bench.The court has directed high courts to amend their judicial service rules within three months. The new system will remain in place for five years, after which the Supreme Court will review its working.What did the Supreme Court say?The review petitions challenged the Supreme Court's May 2025 judgment, which had made three years of legal practice a requirement for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. While reconsidering the decision, the court retained the requirement of prior practice but reduced it to one year.“The direction is that all law graduates will be eligible to apply notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement, having regard to the fact that more than one year has elapsed since the judgment under review was pronounced. Such candidates, for the purposes of their applications, will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice and shall not be required to produce a certificate of practice in respect of the said period,” the Supreme Court said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.The court's May 2025 judgment had directed that candidates for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination must have three years of practice as lawyers. It had also said the requirement would apply prospectively and would not affect recruitment processes that had already started before the judgment.The earlier judgment was delivered by a bench comprising then CJI BR Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran. It also directed candidates who clear the judicial service examination to undergo at least one year of training before they begin presiding over courts.The May 2025 ruling led to several review petitions. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves challenged the requirement, citing earlier Law Commission reports that had opposed making prior practice at the Bar mandatory for entry into the judiciary. Another petition filed by advocate Chandra Sen Yadav argued that the requirement violated the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment.The review petitions also raised concerns about the impact of the practice requirement on fresh law graduates, candidates from economically weaker backgrounds and socially disadvantaged groups. The petitioners questioned whether sufficient data had been considered before making prior legal practice a condition for entry into judicial service.