This issue has undergone several changes since it was covered in the 14th Law Commission of India (LCI) report in 1958, which was presided over by M.C. The Setalvad. According to the Commission's argument, candidates for lower inferior judge positions in each state must have three to five years of experience.

This test would not rely solely on rote memorization; it would also include practical questions. Writing judgments, appreciating substantiation, and drafting suppliances were all to be tested. Regretfully, rote memory is still the only thing tested on the question papers of the most recent judicial services exams.

A centralized judge reclamation system, known as the All India Judicial Services (AIJS), was suggested for the advanced bar. According to the Commission's report, it was imperative to hire talented university graduates for the judicial system at the appropriate moment. Therefore, the AIJS didn't require any real-world experience.

Anyone with a law degree who is between the ages of 21 and 25 is eligible, and a "precisely prepared plan of instruction" that includes hands-on court work was to be used to build practical experience. The National position was to be the site of the test. In other words, the report argued for two distinct sets of eligibility requirements for reclamation at the public position (AIJS) and the state position (lower inferior judge examinations).

Introduction:
The three-judge bench of BR Gavai, CJI, AG Masih, and K Vinod Chandran, JJ, is contesting a mandatory three-time legal practice requirement for prospective civil judges that was instituted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through a 2002 amendment to its judicial service rules. reinstated the requirement that candidates for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam practice at the bar at least three times. It mandated that each State Government modify its own regulations to include this eligibility requirement. An advocate with at least ten years of standing at the Bar must certify and support the three-time practice. Similarly, experience working as a judge's law clerk will also be recognized when appropriate.

Additionally, before presiding over court proceedings, the Court mandated that all new hires to the judicial service undergo a single training session.

The Court made it clear that the requirement of at least three years of legal experience in order to sit for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam will only apply in the future and have no bearing on ongoing reclamation procedures. It was decided that movables for which High Courts had previously started the selection procedure would not be subject to the minimal practice requirement. Only the upcoming reclamation cycle would be subject to the mandate.

Concerning the direct appointment of recent law graduates as judges, the Court pointed out that such newcomers often have the practical experience required to fulfill their judicial duties. According to the observation, judicial officers are entrusted with things pertaining to life, liberty, and property, and such responsibilities necessitate more than just academic knowledge; they also need to be conversant with courtroom procedures, have practical experience, and be mentored by knowledgeable attorneys.

As a prerequisite for taking the judicial service examination, the Court supported the reinstatement of a service demand, acknowledging the necessity of prior legal experience. It further explained that the three-year legal practice period will begin on the date of provisional advocate registration rather than the date of passing the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE), taking into account the different AIBE schedules for different authorities.

In order to ensure authenticity, the Court mandated that an advocate with a minimum of 10 years of standing at the Bar certify the seeker's legal experience. For the purposes of qualifying, it further decided that expertise obtained while working as a judge's law clerk would be considered legitimate legal practice.

All reclamation procedures that had been halted while the lawsuit was pending were eventually permitted to resume by the Court, subject to the revised regulations announced in accordance with the ruling.

The Supreme Court has decided that in order to be qualified to serve as civil judges (inferior division), campaigners must have at least three years of experience as attorneys. The All India Judges Association and Others' ruling.

Background:
The issue concerns the requirements for entry-level judicial service jobs in India. 

Before 2002, the majority of states still required campaigners to have at least three years of legal practice in order to be eligible for judicial service. 

In the 2002 All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court lifted the restriction, allowing recent law graduates to apply for Munsiff-Magistrate positions without any prior work experience. 

Recently, a case was brought before the Supreme Court to reestablish the minimal practice requirement. 

Several High Courts backed the proposal to implement the minimal practice requirement, arguing that the efficient administration of justice was hampered by the lack of practical experience.

In his capacity as Amicus Curiae, senior lawyer Siddharth Bhatnagar voiced serious concerns about the entrance of recent law graduates to the judiciary without any prior legal practice. 
High Court maturity and nations' submission that the entry of recent law graduates into the judicial system has proven "athwart productive." 

Remarkably, the restoration of the three-time practice demand was only rejected by the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh. 

After reserving the case for judgment, the Court halted reclamation proceedings that had been started without the minimal service requirement.

Compliances:

• After giving it some thought, the Honorable Supreme Court has decided that it is appropriate to reinstate the requirement that candidates for entry-level positions in the judicial service complete a minimum of three practices.
• The Court has made it clear that the practice time might be calculated starting on the day of the bar's provisional registration.
• The Court has ruled that reclamation procedures that were previously started by the High Courts before the judgment date will not be retroactively affected by the restored state.
• The minimal practice demand will only apply to unborn replenishments, according to the Court's specifications.
• The Court determined that a document produced by an advocate with ten or more years of standing and duly supported by the station's judicial officer would be adequate proof of meeting the practice requirement.
• A document from an advocate with ten or less standing, supported by an officer appointed by the Court, is seen to be adequate substantiation for attorneys practicing in the Supreme Court or High Courts, the Court has asked.
• Regarding the practice period's efficacy, the Court has given enterprises a pass, pointing out that nominal vakalath signings without significant legal practice demonstrate implied endurance.
• The Court has taken into account the High Courts' cessions, which hold that prior practice is necessary for them to operate effectively as judicial officers.
• The Court has taken judicial note of the widespread belief held by High Courts and nations that admitting recent law graduates to the judicial service has not worked.
• The Court did not make any particular compliances related to any offense in this case.
   

Musts:

• The Supreme Court has decided that in order to be qualified to serve as civil judges (inferior division), campaigners must have at least three years of experience as attorneys.
• The ruling in All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (2025) would not apply to the announcements made in Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, or Rajasthan.
• A lawyer who has served at the bar for at least ten years must certify and support the three-time practice requirement.
• Experience working as a judge's law clerk will be taken into account when calculating the three-time practice requirement.
• The three-year legal practice term doesn't start when you pass the All-India Bar Exam (AIBE); rather, it starts when you are provisionally registered as a lawyer.
• Successful campaigners are required by the Court to undergo one training session prior to serving as judges.
• The decision will be effective moving forward and won't have an impact on judicial reclamation proceedings that have already started.

Conclusion:
An important step toward enhancing the caliber and maturity of India's lower bar is the Supreme Court's decision to implement a three-time practice demand for judicial service eligibility. 
It moves the emphasis from unresisting literacy to active legal involvement, and from book-smart to bench-smart.

Although it presents new difficulties for recent graduates, it also creates a more capable, knowledgeable, and well-prepared bar.

If implemented with appropriate support structures, such as mentorships, organized practice openings and policy clarity could still greatly improve the standards of justice delivery at the grassroots level.