Review Petition Filed in SC Against 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Exams

A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its May 20, 2025 judgment that mandates a minimum of three years of legal practice as a prerequisite to appear for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment exams.

The petition, filed by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, seeks a reconsideration of the judgment passed in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India. The petitioner has urged the Court to defer the implementation of the rule until the year 2027. The plea argues that immediate enforcement of the three-year practice condition unfairly impacts candidates who graduated between 2023 and 2025 and had prepared for the exam based on the previous eligibility criteria, which did not require any prior legal practice.

“Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution,” the plea asserts.

The Supreme Court’s judgment had directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend service rules to reflect the new eligibility requirement, while also clarifying that the rule would not apply to recruitment processes that had already been initiated before the date of the judgment.

However, the review petition contends that the decision disproportionately affects aspirants from marginalised and economically weaker sections, including candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). The plea further submits that the requirement may force several women candidates to delay or abandon their plans to join the judicial services.

It is also argued that the judgment lacks empirical backing.

“There was no comprehensive data before the Court to prove that fresh law graduates or those without three years of practice are underperforming as judicial officers,” the petition states.

The petitioner claims that the ruling relies on broad, opinion-based assertions rather than objective evaluations or statistics, thereby making it vulnerable to review.

Additionally, the petition raises a constitutional concern, arguing that the directive to uniformly amend service rules across all states amounts to overreach. It states that such directions infringe upon the powers vested in State legislatures and public service commissions under the federal structure.

The review petition has been filed through Advocate Kunal Yadav. It seeks either a modification or reconsideration of the verdict to safeguard the interests of current judicial service aspirants who do not meet the newly introduced practice requirement.