New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant directive requiring all High Courts and State Public Service Commissions to extend the application deadlines for Civil Judge (Junior Division) positions to April 30, 2026. This order applies to both currently advertised posts and any fresh notifications issued in the near future.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, passed the order while presiding over review petitions concerning the mandatory three-year practice requirement for judicial aspirants.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the Court intends for the three-year practice condition to remain in place, emphasizing that the mandate was established by a prior Supreme Court judgment which must be respected. The Chief Justice noted that the primary focus of the ongoing review is to determine the “modalities”, or the specific methods, for implementing this rule effectively. He expressed a desire for “mature persons” to enter the judicial service and suggested that the mandatory practice period could involve meaningful work, such as serving as free legal aid counsel, to ensure that candidates actually gain experience rather than merely wait.
The Court’s stance comes amid varied feedback from legal stakeholders. Amicus curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar submitted that while High Courts generally support the practice requirement, many law universities oppose it. Conversely, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that the rule creates significant hardships, particularly because judicial examinations are not held annually, which increases the age of candidates entering entry-level judicial posts.
Special attention was also given to the impact of this requirement on women and candidates with disabilities. Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija highlighted that the three-year mandate can have a long-term adverse effect on women, as it often coincides with their reproductive years and may lead to social pressure to abandon their professional paths. Despite these concerns and suggestions for relaxations, the Chief Justice remarked that providing specific exemptions for women or persons with disabilities might not be practical or workable in a judicial setting.
Alternative models for judicial preparation were also discussed, with Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves suggesting that intensive institutional training within judicial academies might be more effective than pre-entry practice at the Bar. The Chief Justice acknowledged that one potential model could involve recruiting talented candidates early and training them within the system to avoid losing them to other career paths during a mandatory three-year wait.
These review petitions seek to challenge a May 2025 judgment that restored the practice requirement, which some petitioners argue disproportionately affects candidates from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to continue hearing the review petitions next week.
