SC Quashes MP HC’s 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judges

Supreme Court Quashes MP High Court’s 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judge Recruitment

Top Court Says Mandatory Experience Rule Unconstitutional and Impractical

Recruitment Process Restored; Thousands of Aspirants Get Relief

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: September 24, 2025: In a major relief to thousands of law graduates aspiring to join the judiciary, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates applying to the post of civil judge (entry-level).

A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the verdict on September 23, 2025, calling the High Court’s directive “unconstitutional, impractical, and a move that would open floodgates of litigation.”

The decision restores the eligibility criteria that existed before the controversial amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 1994, which had introduced the three-year practice requirement in June 2023.

Background of the Case

Original Rules: Under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 1994, fresh law graduates were eligible to appear for the civil judge (entry-level) examination.
Amendment in 2023: On June 23, 2023, the state amended the rules, making three years of legal practice compulsory to sit for the exam.
High Court’s Division Bench Order (2024): The amendment was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which directed that all candidates who had cleared the January 14, 2024 preliminary exam but did not meet the new eligibility criteria should be excluded.
Litigation by Candidates: Several unselected candidates challenged the recruitment process, arguing that they would have been eligible under the amended rules and demanded a re-exam.
Supreme Court Intervention: The Apex Court stayed the High Court’s order in 2024, allowing recruitment to continue, and finally delivered its judgment in September 2025.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court made several key observations while striking down the High Court’s order:

Unconstitutional Burden
The Court held that imposing a mandatory three-year practice requirement was unconstitutional as it restricted opportunities for fresh law graduates without a valid justification.
Impractical and Disruptive
The bench noted that enforcing the rule retrospectively would disrupt the recruitment process, create uncertainty, and unfairly penalize candidates who had already cleared the preliminary exam.
Floodgates of Litigation
The Court warned that such a rule would lead to endless litigation, with candidates challenging cut-offs, eligibility, and recruitment outcomes.
Judicial Independence
The Court emphasized that judicial recruitment must remain transparent, fair, and accessible, and cannot be subjected to arbitrary changes that disadvantage deserving candidates.

Arguments Presented

For the High Court: Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh High Court, argued that conducting a re-exam based on the amended rules was “unconstitutional and impractical.” He said it would cause chaos and delay in filling judicial vacancies.
For the Candidates: The petitioners argued that the amendment was discriminatory and deprived fresh graduates of opportunities, despite them being qualified under the original rules.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching consequences:

Recruitment Restored: The recruitment process for civil judges in Madhya Pradesh, which had been stalled, will now proceed without the three-year practice requirement.
Relief for Aspirants: Thousands of law graduates who had cleared the preliminary exam but lacked three years of practice are now eligible to continue in the selection process.
Clarity on Eligibility: The judgment provides much-needed clarity on the eligibility criteria, ensuring that future recruitment is not derailed by sudden rule changes.
Precedent for Other States: The ruling may influence judicial recruitment policies in other states, many of which have debated whether to require prior practice experience.

Broader Context: Debate on Experience vs. Fresh Talent

The controversy reflects a larger debate in India’s judicial recruitment system:

Argument for Experience: Supporters of the three-year practice rule argue that judges should have some courtroom experience before taking the bench, as it equips them with practical knowledge of law and procedure.
Argument for Fresh Graduates: Opponents say that fresh law graduates bring energy, adaptability, and academic knowledge, and that judicial training academies can provide the necessary practical exposure.

The Supreme Court’s ruling leans in favor of opening opportunities to fresh graduates, while leaving the door open for states to design training programs that bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Reactions to the Judgment

Legal Experts: Many legal scholars have welcomed the decision, saying it protects the rights of young law graduates and prevents arbitrary barriers to entry into the judiciary.
Law Students and Aspirants: Across Madhya Pradesh and beyond, law students expressed relief, calling the judgment a “lifeline” for their careers.
Judicial Officers: Some serving judges noted that while experience is valuable, it should not be imposed as a rigid precondition, especially when judicial academies exist to provide training.

The Road Ahead

With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) and the High Court administration can now proceed with the recruitment process. The decision also sets a precedent that eligibility rules must be reasonable, non-discriminatory, and consistent with constitutional principles.

The judgment is expected to influence future debates on judicial reforms, particularly regarding:

The balance between academic qualification and practical experience.
The role of judicial academies in training new judges.
The need for uniformity in judicial recruitment rules across states.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s three-year practice rule is a landmark ruling in judicial recruitment. By restoring opportunities for fresh law graduates, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that access to the judiciary must remain open, fair, and merit-based.

This judgment not only brings relief to thousands of aspirants but also sets a strong precedent for ensuring that judicial recruitment remains inclusive and constitutionally sound.