Discuss the rationale behind mandating prior legal practice for entry-level judicial service. Critically examine the Supreme Court's evolving stance on this issue (2002–2026).

Recruitment to the State judicial service is made by the Governor under Article 234, on rules framed in consultation with the High Court and the State Public Service Commission [5]. Yet the entry qualification — whether a fresh law graduate may judge — has been settled repeatedly by the Supreme Court, most recently in August 2026.

Rationale for mandating prior practice

• Courtroom exposure: a trial judge handles bail, evidence and witness conduct from day one; Bar experience supplies the practical grounding classroom learning cannot.
• Quality of the district judiciary: with over 4.4 crore cases pending in district and subordinate courts (31 December 2025) [3], competence at the entry level directly shapes justice delivery.
• Judicial temperament: exposure to litigants' realities builds empathy, ethical judgement and awareness of procedural delay.
• Institutional confidence: the Bar's endorsement lends credibility to those exercising judicial power.

The evolving stance, 2002–2026

• 2002: in All India Judges Association, the Court removed the practice requirement, opening direct entry to fresh graduates.
• May 2025: reversing itself, it restored a three-year practice rule for Civil Judge (Junior Division) [1].
• August 2026: on review, a 2:1 Bench reduced this to one year, added a year's judicial academy training plus clerkship, applied the regime from 1 April 2027, and protected candidates who applied in the interim [2].

Critical assessment

• Merits: the compromise retains practical exposure while substituting structured, supervised training; transitional protection prevents hardship litigation.
• Limitations: three reversals in two decades create uncertainty for aspirants; even one year of poorly-paid junior practice disadvantages women and first-generation lawyers; verifying practice certificates burdens High Courts; and a dissent signals unsettled reasoning.

The 2026 recalibration sensibly balances competence with accessibility. Going forward, stipends for junior advocates, credible certification norms, and progress on the All India Judicial Service envisaged under Article 312 [4] would secure quality entrants without narrowing the doorway to the bench.