Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Judicial Service Entry Rule
On July 28, the Supreme Court of India reserved its verdict on review petitions challenging its previous decision that necessitates a mandatory three-year law practice for candidates aspiring to enter the judicial service. This requirement has sparked significant debate and has been the subject of several review petitions.
Background of the Case
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran, earlier agreed to hear the petitions in an open court session. These review petitions contest a judgment delivered in May 2025, wherein the Supreme Court mandated that candidates must possess a minimum of three years of legal practice to qualify for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
Details of the May 2025 Judgment
The May 2025 ruling specified that the practice requirement would be applied prospectively and would not influence recruitment processes already underway before this ruling. Furthermore, it decreed that the period of practice would commence from the date of provisional enrolment. The Court also mandated that selected candidates undergo at least one year of judicial training prior to assuming their roles in court.
Instructions to High Courts and State Governments
The Bench, which then included Chief Justice BR Gavai along with Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, instructed all High Courts and State governments to revise their service regulations to integrate this new prerequisite. This directive prompted several petitions seeking a review of the Court’s decision.
Contentions Raised in Review Petitions
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves filed a review petition contesting the verdict, citing various grounds. The plea referenced Law Commission reports from 1924 to 1986, which opposed making Bar practice a compulsory criterion for judiciary entry. It also drew attention to the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report of 2022, advocating for the introduction of such eligibility criteria only after a broader consultative process.
More Read
Moreover, Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav presented a plea arguing that the rule breaches Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. The petition called for deferred implementation of the rule, emphasizing that recent law graduates should not be disadvantaged by the change in eligibility criteria.
Concerns Over Social and Economic Impact
The review petitions voiced concerns that the three-year practice requirement might unfavorably affect candidates from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities. Petitioners questioned whether sufficient objective data supported the need for such a mandatory practice period.
