Supreme Court trims advocate experience requirement to one year for judicial posts
The Supreme Court has lowered the eligibility rule, allowing lawyers with just one year of practice to sit for the entry-level judicial officer exams, while mandating two years of on-the-job training before they can preside over cases.
In a split decision, the Supreme Court altered the 20-year-old recruitment framework for entry-level trial courts, reducing the mandatory practice period for advocates from three years to one. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Surya Kant and joined by Justice A G Masih, held that fresh law graduates with a year of experience may sit for the three-tier examination for civil judges and magistrates. Successful candidates will be designated as trainee judicial officers and receive a fixed stipend equal to half a magistrate’s salary during a one-year intensive training at the State Judicial Academy.
Following this, they will undergo a structured one-year clerkship—six months with a principal district judge and six months with a high court judge—who will assess their suitability for permanent appointment. Justice Vinod Chandran dissented, preferring the existing three-year rule. The change aims to broaden the pool of eligible candidates while ensuring adequate practical training.
Why it matters
It expands access to judicial careers while introducing mandatory training to maintain court competence.
In this story
