📰 Colin Gonsalves Files Review Petition in Supreme Court Against 3-Year Legal Practice Mandate for Civil Judge Recruitment
📍 New Delhi, July 18, 2025 — Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court of India, challenging its landmark judgment dated May 20, 2025, in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India. The ruling had upheld the requirement of three years of legal practice as a mandatory qualification for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
⚖️ Petition Challenges Violation of Fundamental Rights
Gonsalves, a noted constitutional lawyer and founder of the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), has contended that the mandatory practice rule violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification and denying equal access to public employment. The review petition calls for reconsideration of the May 2025 verdict, which upheld the recommendations of the Second and Third National Judicial Pay Commissions in favor of the practice-based criterion.
👨⚖️ Prior Review Filed by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav
Earlier this month, Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav also moved the Supreme Court with a similar review plea, challenging the same judgment. Yadav argued that the rule bars talented fresh graduates—including those from marginalized and economically weaker backgrounds—from entering the judiciary directly after law school and clearing the judicial service examinations.
Both petitions emphasize that the new eligibility condition is exclusionary in nature, lacking a rational nexus with the objective of ensuring judicial competence.
📚 Background: The May 2025 Supreme Court Ruling
In All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of implementing the three-year practice requirement, stating that real-world legal experience enhances judicial preparedness. The judgment received both support and criticism across legal circles.
While the Bench held that such experience fosters “maturity and courtroom familiarity,” critics argue it places unnecessary hurdles in front of law graduates who are otherwise eligible and competitive.
🧑⚖️ What's Next?
Both review petitions are now awaiting listing before a suitable Bench of the Supreme Court. Legal observers are closely watching whether the Court will agree to revisit its earlier judgment or continue to back the practice mandate.
The case has reignited national debate on judicial service recruitment policies, balancing experience-based eligibility against the principles of equality and access to opportunity.
Post a Comment