Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Advocacy Experience Requirement for Judicial Service Entry

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Supreme Court Restores...

In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai, mandated a minimum of 3 years’ advocacy practice for candidates seeking entry-level judicial posts, restoring the pre-2002 requirement. The Court held that first-hand courtroom experience is crucial for judicial competence and cannot be replaced by academic knowledge or training. The requirement applies prospectively, exempting ongoing recruitment processes. Certificates from senior advocates and judicial officers will validate practice. The Court emphasized that fresh law graduates lacked adequate exposure, often leading to inefficiencies in the judiciary, and directed High Courts and State Governments to amend service rules accordingly.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra, SLP (C) 15737/2019, Judgment date: 05-05-2021

The classification of Marathas as a socially and educationally backward class was unreasonable as they belonged to a politically dominant caste with significant economic resources. The court also concluded that the majority opinion in the Indra Sawhney case was correct and that the limit of 50 percent for caste-based reservations Read more »

Anil Yashwant Karande Vs. Mangal Anil Karande, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6257

The court observed that, by submitting an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restoration of conjugal rights within the same roof, a spouse cannot claim that they would force another person to cohabit with them and treat them cruelly at the same time. Read more »

Dharmendra Sharma Vs. Agra Development Authority, 2024 INSC 667

The Supreme Court addressed a dispute over the delayed possession of an apartment. The appellant sought a refund with interest due to the respondent's failure to provide necessary completion and firefighting clearance certificates. When the Respondent had pleaded the application to be barred by limitation on the ground that the Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.