The Supreme Court of India has recently been approached with a review petition challenging its judgment mandating a minimum of three years of legal practice at the Bar for eligibility to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) across the country. This rule, reinstated by the Court in May, was part of a broader decision aimed at improving the quality of judicial officers entering the subordinate judiciary. However, the review petition, filed by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav and argued by Advocate-on-Record Kunal Yadav, seeks reconsideration of the judgment on constitutional and practical grounds, asserting that it unjustly bars fresh law graduates from entering the judiciary and undermines equitable access to public employment.
The Supreme Court’s May verdict revived a practice requirement that was earlier scrapped in 2002, following recommendations from the Shetty Commission. That commission had advocated for open entry to the judicial services directly from law schools, provided that post-selection training and assessments were introduced to ensure competence. The current judgment reinstates the rule that all applicants must have at least three years of legal practice, either as advocates or law clerks, before being eligible for judicial service. This shift, according to the petitioners, was introduced without sufficient empirical backing and has resulted in immediate disqualification of thousands of aspiring candidates who had been preparing under the assumption that fresh graduates were eligible.
The petition argues that this sudden change violates Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which protect equality before law, equality in matters of public employment, and the right to practice any profession. The requirement is characterized as arbitrary and unreasonable, especially given the fact that it is being implemented with immediate effect, leaving no room for transition. The petition suggests that such a significant change should be deferred until at least the 2027 recruitment cycle so that aspirants are not disadvantaged by a sudden policy reversal.
One of the most compelling concerns raised in the review petition is that of legitimate expectation. Candidates who graduated recently and invested considerable time, energy, and resources preparing for judicial services now find themselves abruptly rendered ineligible. Many of these candidates come from economically weaker backgrounds or belong to historically marginalized communities. The review argues that the new mandate will disproportionately affect women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Class candidates, effectively narrowing the social diversity of future judges.
The petition also criticizes the lack of comprehensive data behind the Supreme Court’s decision. It argues that the bench relied heavily on supportive affidavits from certain High Courts and state governments while disregarding contrary views expressed by others. Notably, states such as Nagaland, Tripura, and Chhattisgarh had objected to the reintroduction of the bar experience requirement, emphasizing that it may not be necessary for assessing the competence of young judicial officers. The review argues that the Court should have taken a more balanced view, particularly by analyzing data from states that allow entry-level judicial appointments without prior practice.
Furthermore, the petition asserts that such a blanket rule should fall within the domain of the legislature or individual state High Courts and Public Service Commissions rather than being imposed through judicial directive. Post-2002, various states had adopted different eligibility criteria based on local needs and conditions. Some permitted direct recruitment of law graduates, while others introduced practice requirements or allowed academic excellence as a substitute. The imposition of a uniform rule across all states, the review contends, disregards this federal diversity and undermines institutional autonomy.
Another key argument raised is that the definition of “practice” under the new requirement is too narrow. By limiting eligibility primarily to those with courtroom litigation experience, the ruling excludes law graduates who have pursued careers as corporate counsel, legal researchers, in-house advisors, and even judicial clerks in higher courts. These roles, although not conventionally recognized as “practice at the Bar,” involve substantial legal analysis and courtroom experience. The review insists that such roles should be treated as valid equivalents of bar experience when assessing eligibility for judicial recruitment.
The petition also questions the constitutionality of the directive from a broader perspective. It highlights that the Supreme Court, by imposing the three-year rule as binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, has effectively legislated from the bench. This, it argues, encroaches upon the powers of the legislature, state governments, and judicial service commissions. In a country with diverse legal needs and recruitment patterns, a uniform rule may not address the unique socio-economic and regional realities faced by aspiring judges across different states.
One of the more practical concerns raised in the petition relates to the impact on ongoing recruitment cycles. In several states, notifications had already been issued for judicial service exams under the existing eligibility norms that allowed fresh graduates to apply. The sudden imposition of the new requirement has created legal uncertainty, with some recruitment authorities choosing to halt the process while others continue under the older framework. This inconsistency could potentially lead to litigation, administrative confusion, and hardship for thousands of candidates.
Moreover, the petition suggests that even if the goal is to improve the quality of the judiciary, the same could be achieved through robust training, mentoring, and performance evaluation mechanisms rather than by erecting entry barriers. The Shetty Commission’s recommendation for comprehensive post-recruitment training was aimed precisely at equipping new recruits with the necessary skills to serve as competent judges, regardless of their prior experience at the Bar. By reintroducing the three-year practice rule without evaluating the performance of those recruited under the previous open-entry regime, the Court’s judgment lacks evidentiary support.
In essence, the petition urges the Supreme Court to consider whether the means adopted to ensure judicial competence are proportionate, inclusive, and fair. It argues that judicial service is a career that benefits not just from litigation experience but from academic excellence, critical reasoning, and a deep understanding of legal principles—all of which can be found in fresh graduates. The review also asks the Court to consider the broader implications of the rule on access to justice, social diversity within the judiciary, and the constitutional principles of equality and fairness.
The outcome of this review petition could have far-reaching implications. If the Court agrees to reconsider its decision, it may result in a more nuanced and balanced framework for judicial recruitment—one that recognizes the value of practical experience without undermining equitable access to the judiciary. On the other hand, if the Court upholds its earlier judgment, it will solidify a shift in recruitment policy that prioritizes prior Bar experience, reshaping the profile of future judicial officers across the country.
The review represents more than a legal challenge—it reflects a broader debate about how best to select and train the judges of tomorrow. As the judiciary seeks to balance quality with access, experience with merit, and uniformity with flexibility, the case will test the limits of judicial intervention in administrative and legislative domains. Whether through reform, clarification, or reconsideration, the Supreme Court’s response to this review petition will be closely watched by legal scholars, judicial aspirants, and institutions across India.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.