Should the judiciary lay down eligibility conditions for judicial service recruitment, or is this the legislature's domain? Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court rulings.

Under the proviso to Article 309 read with Articles 233–234, recruitment rules for the subordinate judiciary are framed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court [3]. Yet successive Supreme Court rulings on Bar-practice eligibility show the judiciary effectively occupying this field.

The shifting judicial standard

• 2002 (All India Judges Association): the Court removed the practice requirement, opening the examination to fresh law graduates [2].
• May 2025: it restored a three-year minimum practice rule for Civil Judge (Junior Division), citing the poor courtroom preparedness of raw recruits [2].
• August 2026: on review, a 2:1 Bench led by CJI Surya Kant cut this to one year, added a year of judicial-academy training plus clerkship, made it operative from 1 April 2027, and deemed interim applicants compliant [1].

Case for judicial rule-making

• Ensures uniformity across States whose service rules diverge widely, especially as no All India Judicial Service exists despite Article 312 enabling one [4].
• High Courts already control the district judiciary under Article 235 [3]; entrant competence directly affects justice delivery amid persistent subordinate-court vacancies [5].
• Fills executive inertia — the AIJS proposal has stalled for want of consensus among States and High Courts [4].

Case for legislative/executive primacy

• Eligibility is a policy choice involving fiscal, manpower and equity trade-offs, best settled by elected legislatures after consultation.
• Judicially imposed conditions lack stakeholder consultation; the 2002→2025→2026 oscillation created uncertainty and proof-of-practice compliance burdens for aspirants [1].
• A three-year bar disproportionately excluded economically weaker and women graduates unable to sustain low-paid junior briefs [1].

The 2026 recalibration shows the Court itself correcting course, suggesting such conditions are better settled through rules framed by States and High Courts, with the judiciary confined to constitutional review. A consultative framework — reviving the AIJS debate and strengthening judicial academies — would secure both competence and equitable entry, advancing the constitutional promise of speedy, accessible justice.