A review petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging its recent judgment that requires candidates to have practiced law for a minimum period of three years to be eligible for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petition calls for the implementation of this mandate from 2027 onward to prevent the exclusion of law graduates who prepared under earlier eligibility standards.
On May 20, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment directing High Courts and State Governments to amend their service rules. The Court held that candidates seeking to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination must have “practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination.” The ruling exempted cases where the selection process had already begun before the judgment’s date from the applicability of the practice requirement.
Read More: Petition challenges retrospective enforcement; cites violation of constitutional guarantees
Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav has filed the review petition, contending that the immediate enforcement of the three-year practice rule causes “retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution.” As an alternative relief, the petitioner seeks deferral of the rule’s enforcement until 2027 to protect law graduates from 2023 to 2025.
The review petition, filed through Advocate Kunal Yadav, seeks reconsideration of the three-year practice requirement. It requests suspension or postponement of the mandate to prevent unfair retrospective consequences and to allow adequate time for aspirants to adjust. The petition also calls for a re-examination of the evidentiary basis and the Court’s jurisdiction to prescribe eligibility criteria that effectively displace legislative prerogatives.
The petitioner asserts that the judgment infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by imposing an eligibility condition that disproportionately affects candidates from marginalized sections, notably Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Further, the rule is said to unjustly exclude law graduates engaged in non-litigation roles, including corporate and public sector legal practice.
It is also argued that the Court’s decision lacks evidentiary support, as “there was no comprehensive data placed before the Court to establish that fresh law graduates or candidates without three years of Bar experience are underperforming in judicial roles.” The petition emphasizes that the Court’s reliance on “broad, opinion-based statements renders the decision vulnerable to review.”
Moreover, the plea challenges the Supreme Court’s directive as an overreach, contending that mandating uniform amendments across all High Courts and State Governments encroaches upon the legislative domain and powers of Public Service Commissions, exceeding the judicial authority vested under Article 141.
The Apex Court in its judgment observed that candidates must satisfy the condition that they “must have practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination.” The Court allowed an exception for recruitment processes already underway prior to the judgment. The review petition disputes the Court’s acceptance of general views expressed by the learned amicus curiae and counsel for most of the High Courts in place of empirical evidence or objective criteria.
Picture Source :
