38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, October 09, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Plea in SC seeks review of judgment mandating 3-yr practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division)

By Jhanak Sharma      16 June, 2025 04:53 PM      0 Comments
Plea in SC seeks review of judgment mandating 3 yr practice for Civil Judge Junior Division

NEW DELHI: A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against May 20, 2025 judgment prescribing a minimum three years practice at the Bar as a prerequisite for those appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

The mandate also unreasonably restricted the freedom of a law graduate to choose and pursue a lawful profession in the judiciary, thereby infringing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the plea filed by Chandrasen Yadav, a practising advocate and an aggrieved judicial service aspirant contended.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court had directed all the High Courts and the state governments in the country to amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of entering the judicial services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) will now have to possess three years experience as advocates.

The petitioner claimed the court ignored the submission by the States of Nagaland, Tripura, and Chhattisgarh and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which opposed the said requirement. The court unilaterally decided to ignore the Shetty Commission report of 1999 at one go, while making it mandatory for judicial aspirants/advocates to practise for three years prior entering into judicial service at lower rung/level, it said.

"The court ought to have duly appreciated the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, which explicitly stated that if young and meritorious law graduates are imparted intensive training, it may not be necessary to prescribe three years of practice at the Bar as a precondition for entry into judicial service," the plea said.

It also contended the judgment created a blanket disqualification of an entire class of law graduates without substantiating why every law graduate without three years of practice was deemed unfit.

"The judgment, committed an error apparent on the face of the record by referring to law graduates as ‘raw graduates,’ which is a misleading characterisation," it said.

The plea stated a candidate selected for judicial service is not ‘raw,’ but one who has undergone a rigorous and multi-tiered selection process comprising a comprehensive preliminary examination, mains examination testing knowledge of substantive and procedural laws, and a final viva voce conducted by senior judges or experienced legal professionals.

"Such a structured and merit-based process is specifically designed to assess the legal acumen, aptitude, and suitability of candidates for assuming judicial office, and therefore, it is inaccurate and unjust to diminish their preparedness or capability by such terminology," the plea said.

The petitioner stated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution stood infringed due to the imposition of an arbitrary and unreasonable condition of mandatory three years’ practice at the Bar. He contended it adversely affecting his right to equal opportunity and fair access to public employment.

The plea filed through advocate Kunal Yadav submitted the three-year practice rule should be implemented only from year 2027 onwards to avoid unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023–2025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria.

"No consideration was given to the number or success rate of fresh law graduates who have historically performed well in judicial services and have served effectively on the bench after undergoing training. In the absence of such material, the judgment falls foul of the constitutional requirement that classification must be based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved," the plea said.

It further contended 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 under Article 309 and state autonomy in judicial recruitment.

"Recruitment rules are within the exclusive domain of the legislature or State Public Service Commissions and not the judiciary. The uniform mandate imposes blanket rules, disregarding State-specific needs and autonomy," the plea said.

The petitioner also stated the three- year requirement may discourage women, first-generation lawyers, and economically weaker candidates who may not have the means to sustain an uncertain legal practice before securing a stable judicial post.

The three-year litigation practice requirement arbitrarily excluded law graduates working in law firms, PSUs, or corporate legal roles, despite their relevant legal experience. This amounts to unreasonable classification and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, it contended.

The petitioner also stated that the direction was not backed by any empirical study or data to show that candidates with three years of practice are better judges than fresh law graduate.
 



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS

pmla-appellate-tribunal-orders-immediate-release-of-seized-bmw-x7-in-hemant-soren-land-scam-case
Trending Crime, Police And Law
PMLA appellate tribunal orders immediate release of seized BMW X7 in Hemant Soren land scam case [Read Order]

PMLA tribunal orders ED to release seized BMW X7 in Hemant Soren land scam case, citing lack of proof linking the luxury car to money laundering.

08 October, 2025 08:06 PM
offence-under-category-of-upholding-family-prestige-sc-orders-release-of-man-on-remission
Trending Judiciary
'Offence under category of upholding family prestige,' SC orders release of man on remission [Read Judgment]

SC orders immediate release of life convict who served 22 years for a murder committed to uphold family honour, citing Maharashtra remission guidelines.

08 October, 2025 08:19 PM

TOP STORIES

allahabad-hc-refuses-interim-protection-to-sambhal-mosque-asks-petitioners-to-approach-appellate-court
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Refuses Interim Protection to Sambhal Mosque, Asks Petitioners to Approach Appellate Court [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court refused interim protection to Sambhal mosque, directing petitioners to seek remedy before the appellate court under UP Revenue Code.

06 October, 2025 04:48 PM
calling-off-marriage-after-courtship-not-a-crime-or-breach-of-promise-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
Calling Off Marriage After Courtship Not A Crime Or Breach Of Promise: Delhi HC [Read Order]

Delhi High Court grants bail, ruling that ending marriage plans after courtship is not a breach of promise or offence under false promise to marry.

06 October, 2025 05:03 PM
celebrating-bail-on-social-media-not-ground-for-cancellation-without-specific-threat-to-complainant-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
Celebrating Bail On Social Media Not Ground For Cancellation Without Specific Threat To Complainant: Delhi HC [Read Order]

Delhi HC rules that celebrating bail on social media isn’t grounds for cancellation unless a specific threat or intimidation is proven.

06 October, 2025 05:25 PM
woman-cannot-claim-maintenance-after-securing-rape-conviction-against-live-in-partner-jammu-and-kashmir-hc
Trending Judiciary
Woman Cannot Claim Maintenance After Securing Rape Conviction Against Live-In Partner: Jammu & Kashmir HC [Read Order]

J&K High Court held that a woman who secured a rape conviction against her live-in partner cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

06 October, 2025 06:08 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email