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

High Court Can’t Become Guardian of Limitation Without Pleadings : Limitation Must Be Pleaded, Not Presumed

In Jai Ram Vs. Som Prakash & Anr. etc., 2025 INSC 227, the Hon’ble Supreme Court chided the High Court for setting-aside a reasoned order of the District Court on the ground of limitation when the issue of limitation was never pleaded, raised or evidence for the same led before the District Court. The underlying... Read more » Read more »

S.74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It’s Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty : SC

In Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023), the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of earnest money in property transactions is valid if reasonable and does not fall under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, unless it forms part of the consideration. The court emphasized that unfair and... Read more » Read more »

SC Clarifies the limitation period under 468 of CR.P.C

In Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 803), the Supreme Court held that for Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period runs from the date a complaint is filed, not when the Magistrate takes cognizance. A timely 498A IPC complaint cannot be dismissed as time-barred due to court delays. Relying on Bharat Damodar... Read more » 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.