A review petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging its May 20, 2025, decision mandating three years of legal practice to be eligible for the post of civil judge (junior division) in the judicial services.
The petition, filed by advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, argues that the judgment contains "glaring errors on record" and seeks a review. The petitioner also urged that the new requirement be implemented from 2027, so as not to unduly impact law graduates of the 2023-2025 batch who had prepared under the earlier eligibility criteria.
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Seeking NEET UG 2025 Final Answer Key Before Results
"Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, which violates the principles of fairness, legitimate expectation and equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution," the petition said.
The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran had delivered the verdict in the All India Judges Association case.
The petitioner said the judgment ignored the key observations of the Shetty Commission, which had recommended removal of the practice requirement. The commission had noted that practical experience through internships and court visits is already part of the law curriculum, and further training is also provided after recruitment.
Read also: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan
The petition pointed out that the court relied on the views of some high courts and state governments that supported the practice condition, but failed to consider the contrary position taken by the Nagaland, Tripura, Chhattisgarh and Punjab and Haryana high courts.
Another key argument was the absence of empirical support for the court's decision. The petitioner highlighted that the judgment did not cite any study, data or statistics to show that fresh law graduates perform poorly in judicial roles.
"No comprehensive data has been produced before this Hon'ble Court to establish that fresh law graduates or candidates without three years of bar experience are performing poorly in judicial roles," the petition said.
"The reliance placed by this Hon'ble Court is arbitrary and not based on any empirical study, objective criteria or statistical assessment of judicial performance."
The petition further argued that the direction has a disproportionate impact on candidates from marginalised backgrounds including SC/ST/OBC communities and economically weaker sections. It also discriminates against those who are working in non-litigation legal roles such as public sector undertakings, law firms or corporate sectors despite their relevant experience.
Read also: Supreme Court: Res judicata applies to impleadment of legal heir under CPC
According to the petitioner, by imposing a uniform eligibility condition through a judicial order without legislative or advisory support, the Supreme Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 141 of the Constitution.
The blanket disqualification of fresh law graduates has been described as an unreasonable restriction on the right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g).
The petition has been filed through advocate-on-record Kunal Yadav and is awaiting consideration by the Supreme Court.
