Supreme Court Allows Open Court Hearing Of Review Petitions Against 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service

The Supreme Court has allowed an open court hearing of the review petitions challenging its judgment mandating a minimum of three years' practice at the Bar for entry-level posts in the judicial service.A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order on February 10 permitting the review petitions to be heard in open court.Ordinarily, review petitions in the Supreme Court are decided in chambers without oral arguments. Open court hearings in review proceedings are allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The review petitions are scheduled to be heard on February 26. Notice on the review petition has been issued to the States and the High Courts.In May last year, the Supreme Court had restored the rule requiring a minimum of three years' practice as an advocate to be eligible for appointment to entry-level posts in the judicial service. The judgment had revived the earlier requirement, which had been relaxed in 2002, and held that prior courtroom experience was essential to ensure competence and maturity among judicial officers at the trial level.Seeking review of the judgment, one Chandra Sen Yadav, a practising advocate, filed a petition in June last year, contending that the mandate for 3-year practice was imposed by the Supreme Court, ignoring certain crucial observations made by the Shetty Commission. The petitioner also submitted that the Court's direction was based solely on the affidavits filed by certain High Courts and State Governments who supported the reinstatement of the condition for legal practice before entering judicial service. However, the contrary recommendations made by the States of Nagaland, Tripura, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and the State of Chhattisgarh, which opposed the said requirement, were not wholly considered by the Court, the petitioner argued.According to the review petitioner, the Shetty Commission recommended the removal of the practice requirement, considering the fact that court visits and internships are part of the curriculum of the law degree. This aspect has not been considered by the Supreme Court. Also, since the candidates undergo training before entering service, the practice condition may not be necessary.It is also argued that the judgment did not cite any factual data, statistics, or studies to establish that fresh law graduates perform poorly as judges. Further, 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. The petitioner thus argued that the judgment was not based on any solid material and was based solely on subjective, anecdotal perceptions.The petitioner further argued that the direction disproportionately impacts aspirants from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities, particularly SCs/STs/OBCs. Also, the three-year litigation practice requirement arbitrarily excludes law graduates working in law firms, PSUs, or corporate legal roles, despite their relevant legal experience.It was argued that by imposing a uniform, binding eligibility condition upon all States and High Courts through a judicial order, without any legislative backing or consultative framework, the Supreme Court has assumed the role of a policy-maker, which is beyond the remit of Article 141.As per the petitioner, the Court created a blanket disqualification of an entire class of law graduates without substantiating why every law graduate without three years of practice is deemed unfit. This results in the infringement of the right to choose a profession as per Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Since the judgment is not based on any objective criteria, the restriction imposed is not reasonable and is arbitrary, the petitioner contended.Case : Chandrasen Yadav v. Union of India and others | Diary No(s).33086/2025Click here to read the order

Supreme Court Allows Open Court Hearing Of Review Petitions Against 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags