Archive · 16 Aug 2025
Supreme Court Maintains Law Practice Rule for Judicial Exams
Imagine you want to be a judge!
The Supreme Court has some rules.
To take the test to become a judge, you usually need to have worked as a lawyer for at least three years.
A judge from a place called Madhya Pradesh asked if the Supreme Court could change the rules so that other judges could take the exam.
The Supreme Court said "no".
They said that if they made changes to the rules, it would cause a lot of problems and they would not make any changes.
So, the original rule, which requires three years of experience, still stands.
The Supreme Court declined to alter its ruling on the three-year law practice requirement for judicial exams.
The court was addressing a plea from a judge in Madhya Pradesh.
The Madhya Pradesh judge sought to include judicial officer experience towards exam eligibility.
The court previously barred new law graduates from taking the judicial services exam.
The CJI stated modifying the rule would open "Pandora's box."
- Who
- The Supreme Court
- What
- The Supreme Court refused to modify its ruling on a minimum three-year law practice criteria for judicial exams.
- When
- Thursday
- Where
- The Supreme Court
- Why
- The court said changing the rule would open "Pandora's box"
- Ruling
- Supreme Court upheld the three-year practice rule.
- Plea Origin
- Judge from Madhya Pradesh
- Issue
- Whether judicial officer experience counts
- Prior Ruling
- New law graduates must have three years experience.