The Supreme Court's ruling on eligibility for prosecutors in judicial examinations.

On September 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important clarification on eligibility for judicial service, granting relief to government prosecutors in Chhattisgarh whose bar licenses had been suspended upon their appointment as state advocates. A bench of the Court allowed them to provisionally sit for the upcoming Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination without requiring an active bar enrollment certificate.

The Court noted that insisting on technical enrollment requirements would have the unintended effect of denying career progression to prosecutors who already practice full-time on behalf of the state. “To exclude such candidates from consideration would amount to penalising them for their choice of public service,” the Bench observed.

The Dispute over Enrollment Rules

Under prevailing practice, government prosecutors and trial attorneys are required to suspend their bar council enrollment when they accept salaried posts. While this prevents conflict of interest in private practice, it left many prosecutors technically “unenrolled” at the time of applying for the judicial service exam.

The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission interpreted this to mean that prosecutors were ineligible to apply, since the rules required candidates to be “enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act.”

This interpretation triggered widespread concern, as it would have excluded hundreds of prosecutors from advancing into the judiciary, despite their years of trial experience.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

By permitting provisional appearance in the exam, the Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between suspension of enrollment for regulatory compliance and disqualification from judicial candidacy. The Bench underscored that prosecutors are not outsiders to the legal profession; rather, they are engaged in full-time legal practice for the state.

The Court’s reasoning reflects a purposive interpretation of eligibility rules, ensuring that form does not override substance. It also directed that results of the exam, in relation to these candidates, would be subject to the final outcome of the matter—thereby balancing fairness with procedural caution.

Implications for Judicial Services Across States

The ruling carries implications beyond Chhattisgarh. Many states follow similar rules requiring suspension of bar licenses when advocates join as public prosecutors, government pleaders, or trial attorneys. Until now, this technicality has placed such lawyers in a grey area regarding judicial service eligibility.

Key implications include:

• Expanded Career Pathways: Prosecutors nationwide may now look forward to judicial service exams without fear of disqualification on technical grounds.

• Recognition of Public Service: The ruling affirms that government advocates remain active legal professionals, even without current bar enrollment.

• Harmonisation of Rules: State public service commissions may now revisit their eligibility clauses to bring them in line with the Court’s reasoning.

Reinforcing the Link Between Bar, Bench, and State

The judgment highlights the interconnectedness of India’s legal ecosystem. Prosecutors form the backbone of criminal litigation, working at the intersection of bar and state. By opening judicial service to them, the Court strengthens the pipeline from prosecution to bench, enriching the judiciary with lawyers deeply familiar with trial court realities.

It also ensures that service to the state does not become a barrier to career advancement, a principle aligned with Article 14’s guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment.

Challenges Ahead

While the interim relief is significant, the final outcome will depend on how the Court ultimately interprets statutory rules under the Advocates Act and judicial service regulations. Questions also remain about whether similar relief will be automatically extended to prosecutors in other states or whether fresh litigation will be required.

There may also be resistance from bar councils, which have traditionally guarded enrollment requirements as essential to professional regulation. Reconciling regulatory oversight with inclusive career progression will require further legal clarity.

Conclusion: A Step Toward Inclusive Judicial Opportunity

The Supreme Court’s order represents a progressive step in interpreting judicial service rules with a focus on fairness and opportunity. By ensuring that prosecutors are not unfairly excluded from civil judge examinations, the Court has recognised the value of their professional experience and reaffirmed that technical formalities should not obstruct substantive justice.

As the legal community awaits the final outcome, the immediate relief ensures that a cohort of experienced government advocates can aspire to judicial office—strengthening the bench with lawyers whose careers have been shaped in the crucible of trial practice.