New Delhi, June 16: A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its recent verdict requiring a minimum of three years of legal practice for candidates aspiring to join the judicial service as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The original judgment, delivered on May 20 by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran, upheld the three-year practice rule for judicial entry-level posts. However, the court clarified that the rule would not apply to recruitment processes already initiated by High Courts prior to the judgment.
Advocate Kunal Yadav, who filed the review petition, argued that the ruling violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment. He requested that the implementation of the mandatory practice requirement be deferred until 2027, to protect recent law graduates from the 2023–2025 batches who had prepared based on the previous eligibility criteria.
The petition contends that the judgment contains apparent errors and disproportionately affects candidates from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, including those from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). It also highlights the absence of empirical data to support the notion that fresh law graduates or those without three years of practice perform inadequately in judicial roles.
The review plea seeks a reconsideration of the ruling in light of these concerns, emphasizing the need for inclusive access to judicial careers and evidence-based policymaking.
