Colin Gonsalves files review petition in Supreme Court against verdict on 3-year practice rule for judicial service

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court challenging the top court's recent judgment that mandates three years of practice as a lawyer to be eligible for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment [All India Judges Association and ors v. Union of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran had on May 20 held that a candidate should have at least three years of practice as a lawyer to enter judicial service.

The Court had directed all the High Courts and the State governments in the country to amend their relevant service rules to implement the same.

However, the Court also clarified that requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the High Court had already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of the judgment.

The review petition filed through advocate Satya Mitra has challenged the judgment on seventeen grounds.

Among other things, it argues the Court failed to consider five Law Commission reports—from 1924 to 1986—which had unanimously rejected the effectiveness of mandatory Bar practice as a prerequisite for judicial appointments.

The petition also refers to the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report (2022), which advised a fresh consultative process before enforcing any such eligibility criteria.

According to the review petition, the judgment ignored critical developments in India’s judicial training infrastructure.

Since 2002, State Judicial Academies have implemented structured pre-service training, including one-year residential programs, court and administrative attachments, and rigorous instruction in courtroom conduct, evidence law and local legal procedures.

It has also raised concerns about procedural fairness. According to the petitioners, affidavits collected from High Courts during the previous hearings were not made public or shared with aspirants, denying them the opportunity to respond or participate meaningfully in the process.

Further, the practice requirement unfairly excludes women, who often face early marriage pressures.

It also affects aspirants from Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Economically Weaker Section backgrounds who lack access to litigation mentorship or financial support.

Persons with disabilities and transgender candidates are also disadvantaged by the lack of inclusive infrastructure in courtrooms and law chambers, it has been contended.

In addition, the petition has criticised the Bar Council of India for its failure to defend student interests during litigation, including its silence on high enrolment fees, unregulated law colleges, and delays in issuing licenses to young lawyers.

"In sum, the BCI's regulatory inertia, poor accountability, and lack of transparency have not only undermined the quality of legal education but have also contributed to the judicial crisis that now burdens aspirants, particularly those from disadvantaged or first-generation backgrounds. If the issue is one of competency and readiness, the root causes lie not in lack of courtroom experience alone, but in the systemic failures that the BCI has failed to address making its silence in this litigation even more concerning," the plea states.

The review petition has sought a stay on the May 2025 judgment, enforcement of the rule only from the 2026 batch onward, relaxation of upper age limits for affected candidates, and the constitution of an expert commission to comprehensively study the rule’s impact.

It has also urged the Court to direct BCI to reform enrolment and law college recognition systems.

A similar petition was filed earlier this month by advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, who contended that the enforcement of the three-year practice requirement violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The judgment of the top court has attracted criticism with some arguing that it may force women candidates to abandon or delay their judicial ambitions.