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

Supreme Court Overrules Azeez Basha: Reframes Minority Institution Criteria in Aligarh Muslim University Case

In AMU v. Naresh Agarwal (2024 INSC 856), a 4:3 Constitution Bench overruled Azeez Basha (1967), holding that an institution does not lose minority status merely because it was created by statute. Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that “establishment” under Article 30(1) depends on the community’s role in founding it, not Read more »

Shilpa Mittal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi Air – 2020 sc-405

The court while ascertaining the scope of Sec 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 held that the Act does not deal with offences which are ‘heinous’ in nature.  It observes that even if a child commits a heinous offence, he cannot be automatically tried as an adult. Before, trying Read more »

Akshay Dhingra Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi), 2022 Scc Online Del 4646

It is established that the authority granted by Section 438 of the CrPC is not to be used frequently. The authority must be used if it appears that an accusation was made with the intent to harm or humiliate the applicant by having him arrested. Consequently, bail cannot be ordered 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.