Today, On 28th July, The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the J&K Civil Judge notification that didn’t include the 3-year practice rule, clarifying that its earlier judgment will apply only prospectively with “no impact on old recruitment notices.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court clarified on Monday that its May 20 ruling, which established a minimum requirement of three years of legal practice to qualify for the entry-level judicial services examination, will be applied prospectively.
This means it will not impact recruitment notices issued prior to the judgment.
The bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, had previously prohibited fresh law graduates from taking the entry-level judicial services examination, stipulating the three-year practice requirement.
The bench, On Monday, which also included Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, declined to consider a petition from Naveed Bukhtiya and five other practicing lawyers.
They challenged the May 14 recruitment notification issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, which did not include the three-year practice criterion.
Earlier, on May 20, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran instructed the High Courts and state governments to revise their service rules.
The amendment requires that candidates wishing to sit for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination must have practiced law for a minimum of three years to qualify.
Also Read: “Being Appointed as An Advocate Commissioner is an Honor”: Kerala High Court Stated
The Supreme Court mandated the rule that candidates must have at least three years of practice as an advocate before applying for entry-level judicial posts.
The Court clarified that this period of legal practice will be counted from the date of provisional enrollment as an advocate.
However, the Court clarified that this requirement would not apply to cases where the High Court had already begun the selection process for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) position prior to the date of the judgment.
The judgment has faced criticism, with some suggesting that it may compel women candidates to abandon or postpone their judicial aspirations.
Also Read: Supreme Court: Balancing Qualification and Experience| MP Judicial Service
A group of petitioners, who work as practising lawyers in the trial courts of Jammu and Kashmir, have challenged the May 14 notification.
They argued that the recruitment rules fail to include the Supreme Court’s mandate requiring three years of practice.
The writ petition was submitted with the support of Advocate-on-Record Raj Kishor Choudhary.
Case Title: Naveed Bukhtiyar and Ors. v. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 633/2025
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
