The Supreme Court has agreed to hear in open court the review petitions challenging its rule mandating three years of legal practice for entry into judicial service. The matter will now be argued orally before the Bench, with notice issued returnable on February 26.
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear in open court the review petitions challenging its earlier judgment that made three years of legal practice compulsory for entry into judicial service in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors..
By an order dated February 10, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran allowed the review petitions to be heard in open court. Normally, review petitions are decided in judges’ chambers on the basis of written submissions alone, without oral arguments. However, in this case, the Court has permitted lawyers to make oral submissions before the Bench.
The review petitions challenge the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment which held that candidates must have at least three years of practice as advocates to be eligible to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The Court has not yet examined the merits of these review pleas. Notice has been issued in the matter and it is returnable on February 26.
In its May 20, 2025 ruling, the top court clarified that the three-year practice requirement would apply prospectively. This means that the rule would not disturb recruitment processes that had already begun before the date of the judgment.
The Court also directed that the period of practice should be counted from the date of provisional enrolment as an advocate. Additionally, it mandated that selected candidates must undergo at least one year of training before they start presiding over courts.
The original judgment was delivered by a Bench led by then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai along with Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran. The Bench had directed all High Courts and State governments to amend their respective service rules to include the three-year mandatory practice condition.
After the judgment, several review petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the direction. Among them was a petition filed by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves. His plea questioned the basis of making prior practice at the Bar compulsory.
The petition referred to Law Commission reports issued between 1924 and 1986, which had opposed introducing a mandatory practice requirement for judicial entry. It also relied on the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report (2022), which had recommended that such an eligibility condition should be brought in only after a wider consultative process.
The review petition further raised doubts about whether the Court had sufficiently considered the existing training systems in State Judicial Academies before introducing the new eligibility rule.
It suggested that structured training programs already in place may adequately prepare new judges, even if they do not have prior practice experience.
Another review petition was filed by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav. His plea argued that the three-year practice requirement violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
The petition sought deferred implementation of the new rule, stating that many recent law graduates had prepared for judicial service examinations based on the earlier eligibility criteria and should not be unfairly excluded.
The review plea also expressed concern about the possible impact of the rule on candidates from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities. It questioned whether there was enough objective data or empirical study to justify making three years of practice mandatory across the country.
With the Supreme Court now agreeing to hear the matter in open court, the issue of mandatory legal practice for entry into judicial service is set to receive detailed oral arguments. The outcome of the review petitions could have significant implications for thousands of aspiring judicial officers across India, as well as for the broader debate on reforms in the judicial recruitment process.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On 3-Year Law Practice
