The Supreme Court Friday declined to revisit its May 2025 judgment restoring a minimum three-year practice requirement for entry into the judicial service but modified the manner in which the condition will now operate.The three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Augustine George Masih gave the majority opinion while Justice K Vinod Chandran dissented.“We find considerable force in the reasoning that a civil judge from the very first day in office will be required to deal with matters of life, liberty, property and personal rights and therefore familiarity with the actual working of courts, courtroom procedure and the respective roles of the Bench and Bar is necessary,” the CJI said.The matter stems from the top court’s May 2025 ruling that restored the requirement for a candidate to have three years of practice as an advocate before entering the judicial service, reversing a 2002 decision that had allowed fresh law graduates to apply directly. This judgment was challenged by aspirants who argued that the ruling was unsupported by empirical data and ignored the practical training already built into legal education. The Supreme Court, earlier this year, subsequently allowed the review petitions to be heard in open court.While pronouncing the order on Friday, the bench observed that “the sudden restoration of the requirement without any transitional arrangement has visited hardship upon law graduates who have prepared their professional lives on the basis of the regime that prevailed for over two decades” and held that the same objective could be achieved through “a structured combination of institutional training at the State Judicial Academies and supervised law clerkship, which shall be treated as equivalent to practice at the Bar for the purposes of eligibility.”The court carved out a two-year transition window for recruitment notifications issued between May 20, 2025, and March 31, 2027. During this period, fresh law graduates will be allowed to apply for judicial service examinations despite not having completed the practice requirement.The bench said that since more than a year has elapsed since the 2025 judgment, such candidates would be deemed to have completed one year of practice and would not be required to furnish any certificate for that period.Recruitment cyclesStory continues below this adCandidates selected through these recruitment cycles will not be appointed directly as judicial officers. Instead, they will first serve as “Trainee Judicial Officers” and undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy. The court directed that this training period be treated as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar. During this period, trainees will receive an emolument equivalent to half the remuneration payable to a Judicial Magistrate First Class.After completing their academy training, the selected candidates will undergo another year of law clerkship, with 6 months under a principal district judge, district judge, sessions judge or a member of the higher judicial service, followed by six months under a sitting high court judge. This clerkship period, too, will be counted as equivalent to one year of practice.Also Read | Why the Supreme Court upheld hanging as a constitutional mode of executionThe bench said that “upon such evaluation being found satisfactory,” the candidate would be appointed to a regular judicial post and become entitled to the full pay scale and service benefits attached to the position.For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, the court said candidates would have to demonstrate at least one year of actual practice before becoming eligible to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The practice period will have to be supported by a certificate showing participation in effective court proceedings in a manner to be prescribed by the high courts.Story continues below this adEven then, successful candidates will still be required to undergo the same one-year judicial academy training and one-year clerkship programme before becoming regular judicial officers. The bench directed all high courts and state governments to amend their service rules with the revised framework within three months. It also said that the scheme would remain in force for five years, after which its impact on judicial recruitment and training would be reviewed based on “empirical material”.