
The judicial services exam is the examination that is taken in India in order to become a judge at a lower level. Applicants were required to have a minimum of three years of experience working as a lawyer prior to submitting their application for many years. Based on a ruling made by the Supreme Court in 1993, this regulation was established.
That provision, however, was eliminated by the Court in the year 2002. This adjustment was made with the intention of luring more recent law school graduates into the judicial system. New law graduates were able to take the exam shortly after they graduated from law school after the year 2002.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
A Recent Decision from the Supreme Court
The previous regulation was reinstated by the Supreme Court on May 20th, 2025. Law graduates are required to have a minimum of three years of experience working as lawyers before they are eligible to take entry-level judicial examinations, as mandated by a bench consisting of three judges.
According to the bench, which is led by the Chief Justice, it is vital for future judges to have actual experience working in a courtroom. In addition, the court decided that this condition will not have any impact on any examination recruitments that are already underway; rather, it will only apply to potential future recruitments.
Why the Court Decided to Make This Decision
The Supreme Court acknowledged that a number of issues developed as a result of the fact that newly graduated law students were appointed to positions of authority without any prior experience in the field.
In many circumstances, for instance, judges who had no experience working in the courtroom found it more difficult to handle cases effectively from the very beginning. It was stated by the court that studying from books alone is not sufficient. By working in a courtroom, a lawyer has experience in dealing with clients, judges, other lawyers, and members of the court staff.
Several high courts have reported that young judges frequently struggle because they have not had the opportunity to experience real-life court proceedings. All of the judges were in agreement that in order to adequately prepare judges, they needed to have some years of experience.
Participants and Coaching Institutes’ Reactions to the Situation
There are some people who disagree with this rule. A large number of law graduates and CEOs of coaching institutes are vehemently opposed to it. As a result, they believe that the decision is unfair and that it is detrimental to pupils who have prepared for it. An individual who is in charge of a coaching center stated that the ruling has left many students feeling astonished and upset.
There is a possibility that these students have spent years studying law and enrolling in costly coaching programs in order to become judges shortly after they graduate. Before students may attempt to take the judicial exam, they are required to either wait or spend years working at a law firm.
Many people have said that their goals for their careers have been put on hold as a consequence of this. Those in the coaching community believe that these concerns require addressed. They are of the opinion that if the court is the one to hear a petition for review, it might take into consideration granting exceptions or transitional arrangements for students who are currently enrolled.
Issues that Concern Coaching Centers Coaching institutes and their students have raised a number of issues, including the following:
A Waste of Both Time and Effort: There were a lot of students who spent months or even years getting ready for the test just after they graduated! This work can now feel like it was squandered or at the very least delayed.
Fresh graduates frequently make very little as junior lawyers, which can be a source of financial hardship. Working for three years at a low pay rate might lead to major financial difficulties, particularly for students who are in possession of loans or who have to pay expensive coaching costs.
A smaller pool of candidates: If applicants must have three years of experience in the field, then a significant number of highly qualified graduates may give up on their dream of becoming judges. As a result, the number of applications might decrease, and the judicial system might have fewer options to choose from.
A number of students are dependent on the financial assistance of their families or on supplemental income in order to perform low-paying legal job.
Some individuals, such as ladies who have taken breaks or students who come from disadvantaged situations, might not be able to maintain a continuous practice over a period of three years. There are others who believe that this guideline is mostly beneficial to individuals who are financially secure.
Those in the coaching community believe that these concerns require addressed. They are of the opinion that if the court is the one to hear a petition for review, it might take into consideration granting exceptions or transitional arrangements for students who are currently enrolled.
Implications for Those Who Have Graduated from Law School
New law graduates will need to adjust their career plans as a result of this rule. The judicial examination was something that a lot of students wanted to take shortly after they graduated from law school. At this point, every graduate is required to first engage in at least three years of legal practice.
This entails working for a considerable amount of time as an intern, a junior advocate, or a legal clerk, frequently with a low salary and a lot of labor. Because of this, a person who graduates at the age of 22 could not be able to become a judge until they are at least 25 years old. Some graduates may have feelings of discouragement, which may lead them to select alternative career options.
Possibility Petition and Consequences Should Be Considered
Legal professionals anticipate the submission of a petition for review. Petitioners submit a review petition to the Supreme Court, requesting that the court reconsider its previous ruling. There is a high probability that coaching institutes and student leaders would submit such a petition, saying that the rule is excessively stringent or that it was implemented without sufficient notice.
It is possible that the precedent will be altered or loosened if the Court decides to reconsider the case. Alterations could also be made to the way that law students are educated and how they prepare for exams. To assist students in gaining experience in the courtroom while they are pursuing their legal education, law schools may place a greater emphasis on practical training or internships.
There is a possibility that coaching institutes will modify their education programs, possibly providing instruction on how to obtain the necessary practice certificate. It has been made quite plain by the Court that the regulation will be implemented for future examinations, but that present recruitment processes will not be altered. Observers have noted that this decision will have a significant impact on the individuals who enter the judicial system as well as the way in which law graduates plan their careers.
Strong emotions have been aroused as a result of the decision made by the Supreme Court to reinstate a practitioner minimum of three years. There are a lot of law students and coaching centers who believe it will be unfairly preventing young candidates who were hoping to become judges shortly from doing so.
Concerned about the impact on their finances and the effort that will be wasted, they want to submit a petition for review. On the other hand, the court is of the opinion that judges who have more experience and a greater understanding of court procedure are more likely to be successful.
The debate sheds light on a more fundamental conflict that exists between opportunity and training. It is possible for the court to revisit the rule if a petition for review is submitted. In either case, this decision will alter the destiny of a great number of law graduates in the years to come.