Review Petition Filed in Supreme Court Against Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judge Recruitment
Review Petition in Supreme Court Against 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judge Posts
A review plea challenges Supreme Court's ruling mandating three years of practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division) exams. Petition cites Article 14 and 16 violations.
Civil Judge 3-year practice rule, Supreme Court review petition, Article 14 and 16 violation
Judicial service eligibility, recent law graduates, All India Judges Association judgment, Civil Judge exam eligibility, legal profession fairness
⚖️ Review Petition Challenges Supreme Court Ruling Mandating 3 Years of Practice for Civil Judge Recruitment
New Delhi, June 16, 2025 – A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging its recent judgment that mandates a minimum of three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for eligibility to apply for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations across the country.
The plea, moved by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, asserts that the ruling infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner has requested the Court to defer implementation of the rule until 2027, arguing that its immediate enforcement would unjustly exclude recent law graduates from 2023 to 2025 who had prepared under earlier eligibility criteria.
📜 Background of the Supreme Court Judgment
On May 20, 2025, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, in the case All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India, directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend their judicial service rules, requiring candidates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to have a minimum of 3 years of practice at the Bar.
However, the Court had clarified that this new eligibility requirement shall not apply to those judicial recruitments where the selection process had already been initiated prior to the date of the judgment.
🧾 Grounds for Review: Fairness and Equal Opportunity
The review petition challenges the retrospective application of the rule, arguing that it violates the principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14. It emphasizes the hardship this rule imposes on aspirants who had relied on previous eligibility norms while preparing for the exam.
“The immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity,” the petition states.
The plea also flags the disproportionate impact on candidates from economically weaker sections (EWS) and socially disadvantaged groups, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
📉 Lack of Evidence and Federal Overreach
Further, the review argues that the Supreme Court judgment was passed without any empirical data or comprehensive studies proving that fresh law graduates underperform in judicial roles.
“The absence of any objective assessment and reliance instead on broad, opinion-based statements renders the decision vulnerable to review,” it states.
The petition also raises constitutional concerns about federalism, asserting that uniform amendment of judicial service rules across all states and High Courts amounts to an encroachment on the legislative powers of the states and their public service commissions.
👩⚖️ Gender Justice and Judicial Ambitions
The judgment has also come under fire from gender rights activists, with concerns that this rule may discourage or delay judicial careers for women candidates, especially those who plan career paths around early entrance into stable government roles.
📋 Filed Through Advocate Kunal Yadav
The review petition has been formally filed by Advocate Kunal Yadav on behalf of Chandra Sen Yadav, and is expected to be listed before the same or a related bench for consideration.
Post a Comment