New Delhi, June 16 (UNI) A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its recent judgment that mandated a minimum of three years’ practice as an advocate for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service at the level of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The petitioner has also urged the Court to defer the enforcement of this rule until 2027 to avoid penalizing law graduates from the batches of 2023 to 2025, who had prepared under the earlier eligibility criteria.
The judgment under review was delivered on May 20 by a bench, comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran, in the All India Judges Association case.
The Court had ruled that a mandatory three-year practice requirement enhances the quality of the judiciary by ensuring that judges have prior courtroom experience.
However, the review petitioner, Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, contended that the judgment suffers from apparent errors on the face of the record and causes retrospective hardship.
The petition stated, “Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation and equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The petitioner argued that the Court’s decision was based only on affidavits filed by a few State Governments and High Courts supporting the reintroduction of the practice requirement, while ignoring the contrary views submitted by the States of Nagaland, Tripura, Chhattisgarh, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
He also submitted that the judgment disregarded the Shetty Commission’s recommendation to eliminate the practice requirement, noting that law internships and court visits are already part of the legal education curriculum and candidates undergo judicial training post-recruitment.
“The judgment was not based on any empirical data, statistical analysis, or studies,” the petition stated. It further argued that there was no material placed before the Court to prove that fresh law graduates have historically underperformed in judicial roles.
“The reliance placed by Apex Court in its judgment on the general views of the amicus curiae and High Court counsel was arbitrary and unsupported by any objective study or judicial performance analysis,” the petition added.
The review petition also raised concerns about the impact of the ruling on aspirants from marginalised communities, including SCs, STs, and OBCs, and on those engaged in legal roles in law firms, public sector undertakings, and corporate sectors, whose experience is not recognised under the new requirement.
Further, the petitioner questioned the constitutional validity of the Court’s imposition of a uniform eligibility rule across all states without any legislative backing, stating that such a mandate falls outside the purview of Article 141 of the Constitution.
The petitioner argued that the sweeping disqualification of all fresh graduates without considering their merit or background infringes upon their fundamental right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) and is arbitrary and unreasonable.
The petition has not been listed yet in the Supreme Court.
