More Stories

Informist, Monday, Jun. 16, 2025

 

NEW DELHI – A review petition was filed in the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging the court's May order that at least three years of legal practice is mandatory to enter judicial services, making fresh law graduates ineligible to apply for the civil judges junior division examination.

 

Chandra Sen Yadav, a practising advocate, filed the review petition in the apex court. Yadav sought that the rule of mandatory three-year practice should be implemented only from 2027 to avoid unjust exclusion of graduates who passed out from 2023 to 2025, who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria. Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution, Yadav said.

 

The petitioner said the apex court's order for mandatory legal practice excludes a large number of meritorious fresh law graduates without any empirical evidence that three years of practice result in better judges. The direction to amend service rules uniformly across all states and high courts amounts to encroachment upon the powers of state legislatures and public service commissions, which are constitutionally empowered to frame service rules and recruitment criteria, said the petitioner.

 

By making three years of legal practice mandatory even for those seeking to enter judicial services, the apex court compels individuals to enter into legal practice for a specified period, thereby indirectly restricting their freedom to choose alternative legal career paths like judicial services, academia and corporate law, said Yadav. The restriction is neither reasonable nor proportionate, especially when there are already rigorous exams and training mechanisms in place for judicial officers, Yadav said.

 

While officers from administrative services without a day of legal experience and without legal background were often being allowed to assume judicial responsibilities in some cases, the current judgment created an inconsistency that violates Article 14 of the Constitution, Yadav said. If advocacy experience is a touchstone of judicial competence, the eligibility of such administrative entrants must also be questioned, said Yadav.

 

The claim that "most" high courts support the three-year rule ignores the fact that several of these courts have successfully operated without such a condition in the past, said the petitioner. The reasoning offered in support varies widely and was not uniform or empirically substantiated. It also excludes valuable input from state public service commissions, judicial academies, and candidates, who are equal stakeholders in judicial recruitment, Yadav added.

 

While courtroom experience is undoubtedly valuable, it is neither the only nor the indispensable path to becoming an effective judicial officer, the petitioner said. If administrative officers without any prior advocacy experience can be promoted or inducted into the judiciary, it would be arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to disqualify academically qualified law graduates who are willing to undergo rigorous judicial training, the petitioner said. "Equating time-based bar experience with practical readiness overlooks the multifaceted nature of legal aptitude and judicial integrity," Yadav added.

 

In May, the top court had said that the appointment of fresh law graduates into the judiciary had led to several problems. From the very first day in office, judges deal with matters concerning life, liberty, and property, areas that demand not just academic knowledge but practical courtroom experience gained by assisting seniors and understanding the court, the apex court had said.  

 

Initially, most states had a condition that lawyers with a minimum three years of practice could apply for judicial service. However, in 2002, the top court had done away with that requirement, allowing fresh law graduates to apply for posts such as Munsiff-Magistrate. Thereafter, pleas were filed in the Supreme Court seeking the reinstatement of the previous condition of experience for entering into the judiciary.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Avishek Dutta

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd, a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2025. All rights reserved.