UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — SC trims law practice requirement to 1 year for judicial service

Question 1

Consider the following features of the recruitment regime for Civil Judge (Junior Division) laid down by the Supreme Court in its ruling of 21 August 2026:
1. A minimum of one year of active legal practice before applying.
2. One year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy for selected candidates.
3. Payment of half the gross remuneration of a Judicial Magistrate First Class to candidates during training.
4. Review of the entire framework by the Supreme Court after it has operated for ten years.
Which of the above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

4 only

Answer

1 and 2

Answer

2 and 3

Answer

3 only

Question 2

In the Supreme Court's August 2026 scheme for entry into the judicial service, who exactly is a 'Trainee Judicial Officer'?

Accepted Answer

A candidate selected in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination, during the year at the State Judicial Academy and the year of structured clerkship that precede regular posting

Answer

A law graduate provisionally enrolled as an advocate, during the year of active practice that must be completed before the judicial service examination can be taken

Answer

An advocate of at least ten years' standing, during the period for which the Court designates them to certify the practice of candidates appearing for the examination

Answer

A serving Judicial Magistrate First Class, during the six months of attachment to a sitting High Court judge prescribed as in-service refresher training

Question 3

In the Supreme Court's ruling of 21 August 2026 on pre-entry practice for the judicial service, the dissent of Justice K. Vinod Chandran is best described as one which favoured which of the following?

Accepted Answer

Retaining the three-year minimum practice requirement as laid down by the Court in May 2025

Answer

Dispensing with any pre-entry practice requirement, as the Court had done by its 2002 ruling

Answer

Extending the pre-entry practice requirement to direct recruitment of District Judges under Article 233(2)

Answer

Bringing the reduced practice requirement into force at once instead of from the appointed date of 1 April 2027

Question 4

Consider the following statements regarding the Benches that decided the judicial service practice-requirement matter:
1. Justice A.G. Masih was a member of both the Bench of May 2025 and the Bench of August 2026.
2. Justice K. Vinod Chandran was a member of both the Bench of May 2025 and the Bench of August 2026.
3. The review of August 2026, headed by CJI Surya Kant, was decided unanimously by the entire Bench.
4. The verdict of 20 May 2025 was delivered by a Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai.
Which of the above is/are correctly identified?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 4

Answer

1 and 3

Answer

2 and 3 only

Answer

1 and 4 only

Question 5

Consider the following statements comparing the Supreme Court's verdict of 20 May 2025 on judicial service eligibility with its ruling of 21 August 2026:
1. The ruling of August 2026 was delivered on review petitions filed against the Court's own verdict of 20 May 2025 in All India Judges Association v. Union of India.
2. The verdict of 20 May 2025 is reported as 2025 INSC 735 and was delivered by a three-judge Bench.
3. Bhumika Trust v. Union of India was decided separately by a High Court and was not connected with the All India Judges Association matter.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 2 only

Answer

1 only

Answer

2 and 3 only

Answer

1, 2 and 3

Question 6

Consider the following statements about the Supreme Court proceedings that culminated in the ruling of 21 August 2026 on judicial service eligibility:
1. The ruling arose out of review petitions directed against the verdict of May 2025, and not out of a fresh writ petition.
2. The Court declined to interfere with the fundamental reasoning of the earlier judgment that a candidate must have exposure to the legal profession before joining the judiciary.
3. The Court held that the requirement of prior experience must bear a reasonable nexus and that no hardship should be caused to young advocates.
4. The Court set aside the verdict of May 2025 in its entirety and restored the position that no pre-entry practice is required at all.
Which of the above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

4 only

Answer

1 and 2

Answer

2 and 3

Answer

3 and 4

Question 7

Consider the following directions:
1. Legal practice was to be certified by an advocate of at least ten years' standing and countersigned by a judicial officer of the jurisdiction.
2. The period of practice could be reckoned from the date of provisional enrolment as an advocate.
3. The requirement was to apply to all pending selections without exception, including examinations already notified.
4. High Courts and State Governments were directed to amend their judicial service rules accordingly.
Which of the above is/are correctly identified as directions issued by the Supreme Court in its verdict of 20 May 2025?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 4

Answer

2 and 3 only

Answer

1 and 3 only

Answer

1, 2, 3 and 4

Question 8

Under the verdict of 20 May 2025, a certificate of legal practice produced by a candidate practising before the Supreme Court or a High Court was to be attested by which one of the following?

Accepted Answer

An officer of that court designated for the purpose of such attestation

Answer

The Secretary of the Bar Council of the State in which the advocate is enrolled

Answer

The Registrar of the State Public Service Commission conducting the recruitment

Answer

The Principal District Judge of the district in which the advocate ordinarily resides

Question 9

Consider the following statements about the position taken by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association in 2002 and its subsequent fate:
1. It did away with the pre-entry practice requirement, permitting fresh law graduates to compete for Munsiff-Magistrate posts.
2. It rested on the Shetty Commission's view that the experience clause deterred the best talent from entering the judicial service.
3. The Shetty Commission had instead recommended an induction training programme of a minimum of one year and ideally two years.
4. This position was expressly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in its verdict of 20 May 2025.
Which of the above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

4 only

Answer

1 and 3

Answer

2 only

Answer

3 and 4

Question 10

With reference to the Constitution of India, in what respect does the process of appointment under Article 234 differ from that under Article 233?

Accepted Answer

Article 234 additionally brings in the State Public Service Commission, whereas under Article 233 the High Court is the sole consultee for the Governor

Answer

Article 234 vests the power of appointment in the High Court, whereas Article 233 vests it in the Governor acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers

Answer

Article 234 requires the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India, whereas Article 233 requires only consultation with the High Court of the State concerned

Answer

Article 234 places the officers so appointed under the control of the State Government, whereas Article 233 places district judges under the control of the High Court

Question 11

Consider the following statements about the training and transitional arrangements ordered by the Supreme Court on 21 August 2026:
1. Six months of the structured clerkship is to be served under the Principal District Judge or members of the Higher Judicial Service.
2. Six months of the structured clerkship is to be served under sitting judges of the High Court.
3. The combined two-year period of academy training and clerkship is treated as equivalent to two years of legal practice.
4. Candidates appearing in examinations notified between 25 May 2025 and 31 March 2027 must demonstrate at least one year of prior legal practice.
Which of the above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

4 only

Answer

1 and 3

Answer

2 and 3

Answer

1, 2 and 3

Question 12

The stipulation that a person not already in the service of the Union or of a State is eligible for appointment as a district judge only if he has been an advocate or pleader for not less than seven years and is recommended by the High Court is contained in which one of the following?

Accepted Answer

Article 233(2), on eligibility for appointment as a district judge

Answer

Article 234, on recruitment of persons other than district judges

Answer

Article 235, on control over courts subordinate to the High Court

Answer

Article 233A, on validation of certain appointments and judgments

UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — SC trims law practice requirement to 1 year for judicial service

Q2. In the Supreme Court's August 2026 scheme for entry into the judicial service, who exactly is a 'Trainee Judicial Officer'?

Q3. In the Supreme Court's ruling of 21 August 2026 on pre-entry practice for the judicial service, the dissent of Justice K. Vinod Chandran is best described as one which favoured which of the following?

Q8. Under the verdict of 20 May 2025, a certificate of legal practice produced by a candidate practising before the Supreme Court or a High Court was to be attested by which one of the following?

Q10. With reference to the Constitution of India, in what respect does the process of appointment under Article 234 differ from that under Article 233?

Q12. The stipulation that a person not already in the service of the Union or of a State is eligible for appointment as a district judge only if he has been an advocate or pleader for not less than seven years and is recommended by the High Court is contained in which one of the following?