The Supreme Court refused to modify its verdict, keeping the three-year law practice requirement for eligibility in judicial services exams. Serving judges cannot use their experience to appear for fresh exams in other states.
New Delhi: On August 14, in a significant judgment concerning the eligibility criteria for judicial services exams, the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to allow serving judicial officers to be considered eligible for entry-level judicial services exams based on their experience as judges.
The case arose after a judge from Madhya Pradesh filed a plea seeking a modification of the May 20 verdict, which had set strict eligibility conditions for fresh law graduates.
On that day, a bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai had barred fresh law graduates from appearing in entry-level judicial services exams unless they had a minimum of three years of law practice.
The verdict clarified that lawyers must practice law for at least three years before they can become eligible to take the judicial services exam.
While the earlier ruling did account for three years of experience as a law intern, it did not consider serving as a judicial officer for three years sufficient for eligibility. In other words, judges who had already served in the judiciary could not use their experience to appear for judicial services exams in other states.
On Thursday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed the plea seeking reconsideration of this rule. The bench firmly held that allowing judicial officers to appear for fresh exams elsewhere would set a problematic precedent.
Chief Justice Gavai remarked,
“”What is wrong in Madhya Pradesh? – we will not modify this. This will open Pandora’s box,””
emphasizing that the current rules must remain uniform across the country.
This decision reaffirms the Court’s stance on maintaining a clear minimum threshold of three years of law practice for law graduates aspiring to enter the judicial services.
Also Read: “Being Appointed as An Advocate Commissioner is an Honor”: Kerala High Court Stated
It also makes it clear that prior experience as a judge in one state does not automatically qualify them to take judicial service exams in another.
Legal experts say this ruling will ensure consistency in eligibility norms and prevent potential loopholes that could disrupt the judicial recruitment process nationwide.
Case Title:
MA in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Toll
