The Supreme Court cut the civil-judge practice rule to one year

The Supreme Court has kept the idea that you need courtroom practice before you become a civil judge. It has cut the length of that practice from three years to one.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran delivered the review on Friday. Justice Chandran dissented. He wanted the three-year rule left intact.

The original order came on 20 May 2025, in the All India Judges Association case. It said Civil Judge (Junior Division) candidates needed three years at the bar. High Courts and law universities said the sudden switch hurt fresh graduates, especially women and candidates with disabilities.

The court refused to drop the practice idea. It said a new judge still needs to have seen a court work. It also said three years, with no transition, was too blunt.

For notifications issued from 20 May 2025 to 31 March 2027, law graduates can sit the exam with no practice certificate. They are deemed to have done one year. If selected, they start as trainee judicial officers. They do one year at the State Judicial Academy, then one year of clerkship: six months under a district or higher judicial service judge, and six months under a High Court judge. Academy pay is half a Judicial Magistrate First Class salary. Regular appointment comes only after a High Court judge files a satisfactory evaluation.

From 1 April 2027, the exam itself needs one year of verified active practice. A practice certificate will not be issued unless the candidate's presence in real proceedings is recorded. After selection, the same academy year and the same two six-month clerkships still apply.

The scheme is to run for five years. The court said it can look again after about three years of data on quality, training and performance.

The fight was never only about numbers. It was about who gets into the lowest rung of the judiciary, and how soon.

Three years at the bar sounds like seasoning. In a lot of district courts it can also mean three years of poorly paid junior work, or three years that women and disabled graduates never start. Counsel told the bench that delay would push people out of the career before they entered it.

The court has split the difference. Exposure stays. The wait shrinks. The real filter moves after selection: academy, clerkship, and a judge's report. That only works if academies and High Courts treat those two years as work, not a holding pen.

Maybe this produces better first-year magistrates. Maybe it just lengthens the queue under a new label. We will not know until those evaluation reports exist.

State public service commissions now have two clocks. Notifications before 1 April 2027 run on the waiver. Later ones need the one-year certificate.

Watch whether High Courts actually record effective participation before they sign those certificates. Watch Justice Chandran's dissent too. The three-year camp has not gone away. It has a judgment to quote.