New Delhi, March 13 The Supreme Court on Friday asked all the high courts to extend the last date for submitting applications for civil judge (junior division) posts to April 30.
A three-judge special bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran was hearing four petitions, including pleas seeking review of an earlier judgment mandating a three-year law practice requirement for entry into judicial service.
On May 20 last year, the top court barred fresh law graduates from appearing in the entry-level judicial services examination, fixing a minimum three-year law practice criterion.
However, the CJI-led bench later sought the opinion of all the high courts, National Law Universities and other law schools on the three-year criterion for appearing in the entry-level judicial services examination. It decided to hear review pleas as well.
The CJI, while deciding to hear the pleas in detail next week, directed that all ongoing and future recruitment notifications must reflect the extended deadline.
“All the high courts are directed to extend the last date of submission of applications, if they have already advertised the post, up to April 30, 2026. Fresh advertisements to be issued by high courts or state Public Service
Commissions shall also have the deadline of April 30, 2026,” the bench ordered.
The direction was issued after the bench was informed that the recruitment process for civil judges had already commenced in some states.
During the hearing, senior advocate Pinky Anand urged the bench to keep the three-year law practice requirement in abeyance until the review petitions are decided.
The bench, however, declined the request and assured the parties that the review petitions would be taken up next week, stating that the extension of the application deadline would address the urgency faced by the aspirants.
The CJI said the three-year law practice requirement was laid down through a judgment of the Supreme Court and must be respected.
According to him, the present exercise was limited to working out the modalities for implementing the rule.
Justice Chandran, who was part of the May 20, 2025, judgement which is under review, said coaching centres for judicial service recruitment are driving the opposition to the mandatory requirement of three years' practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts.
Justice Chandran was responding to the argument that the practice requirement could act as a roadblock for the aspirants and delay their entry into judicial service.
“There is a whole difficulty. Now the source is the coaching centres, and I don't mind saying that in the open court. That is the entire problem. I have been a chief justice, and I have been a senior judge. I have gone through interviews. We have seen district judges. From our experience, we are telling you,” Justice Chandran said.
The CJI said, “Ultimately, let’s be very clear. The practice condition will have to be there. There is a view taken by a bench, and we should respect that bench. The only issue is the modalities of giving effect to that.”
He added that the requirement was intended to ensure that candidates gain meaningful experience before joining the judiciary.
“The point of the practice requirement is that you learn something,” the CJI said, while also questioning whether merely remaining present in courts without substantive work would meet the objective of the rule.
The CJI suggested that engaging young advocates as legal aid counsels could be a constructive way to ensure that they gain practical exposure.
Amicus curiae and senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar informed the bench that most high courts broadly supported the practice requirement, though some suggested relaxations for candidates with disabilities.
On the other hand, several law universities opposed the rule.