Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Review Petitions Challenging 3-Year Practice Mandate For Judicial Service
The Supreme Court on July 28 reserved its verdict on a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier judgment which made three years of legal practice mandatory for candidates seeking entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).
The Court also heard a writ petition seeking the relaxation of the 3-year rule for persons with disabilities.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice August George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard submissions from various counsel, intervenors and the amicus curiae before reserving judgment.
The review petitions seek reconsideration of the Court's May 2025 decision restoring the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial officers, contending that the mandate may discourage meritorious law graduates from joining the judiciary immediately after graduation.
During the hearing, counsel opposing the requirement argued that the mandatory waiting period would adversely affect young graduates opting for judicial service.
"If you delay by three years, they will not take up this profession. Especially women won't come, persons with disability will not come," one counsel submitted before the Bench.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that the focus should instead be on strengthening judicial training after recruitment. She submitted that there should be a system of continuing legal education even after law school and called for a uniform training framework across the country instead of different State Judicial Academies following varying standards.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves similarly opposed the mandatory practice requirement, contending that judicial officers should receive comprehensive institutional training immediately after graduating from law school rather than being required to spend three years in litigation.
Gonsalves pointed out that almost every State already has a Judicial Academy capable of imparting such training. He further submitted that National Law Universities and other law schools across the country had opposed retaining the three-year practice rule.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar suggested that instead of completely relaxing the eligibility requirement, it could consider limited relaxations for certain categories of candidates. He submitted that concessions such as relaxation in qualifying marks could be extended to women and persons with disabilities. Bhatnagar also suggested that judicial clerkships could be recognised as valuable legal experience while considering eligibility for judicial service.
An application was also filed seeking to treat the experience of law officers of the PSUs towards the 3 year practice.
Some High Courts have supported the relaxation of the practice rule for specially abled candidates. Some Law Universities have also backed such a move. During an earlier hearing of the petitions, Chief Justice Surya Kant had orally commented that the 3-year rule was disproportionately affecting women candidates.
Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 001110 / 2025 and connected cases
Case Title – Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases
Related - How 3-Year Practice Rule Impacts Women Judicial Aspirants Needs To Be Observed : Justice Bhuyan