Supreme Court allows open court hearing of review petitions against 3-year law practice rule for judicial service

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear in open court the review petitions challenging its earlier ruling that mandated three years of legal practice as a condition for entry into judicial service [All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors.]

By way of an order passed on February 10, a Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran allowed the review petitions to be heard in open court.

The review petitions have assailed a May 2025 judgement of the Supreme Court which ruled that candidates must have at least three years of practice as lawyers to be eligible to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.

Typically, review pleas are considered by judges in chambers, based only on written submissions and without oral arguments. By directing an open court hearing, the Bench has allowed parties to present their arguments orally.

The merits of the review petitions are yet to be examined. The Court has issued notice returnable on February 26.

In its May 20, 2025 judgment, the Court had clarified that the three-year practice requirement would apply prospectively and would not affect recruitment processes that had already been initiated prior to the date of the ruling.

It also held that the period of practice would be counted from the date of provisional enrolment and directed that selected candidates must undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.

The Bench comprising of then CJI BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran had directed all High Courts and State governments to amend their service rules to incorporate the requirement.

Following the judgment, multiple review petitions were filed challenging the direction.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves had filed a review petition challenging the verdict on several grounds.

The plea had referred to Law Commission reports issued between 1924 and 1986, which opposed making prior practice at the Bar a mandatory condition for entry into the judiciary. It had also cited the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report (2022), which recommended that any such eligibility requirement should be introduced only after a wider consultative process.

The petition further questioned whether adequate weight was given to the existing training systems in State Judicial Academies before bringing in the new condition.

Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav had also filed a plea contending that the requirement violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (guarantees legal equality and equal opportunity in public employment).

The petition sought deferred implementation of the rule, arguing that recent law graduates who prepared under the earlier eligibility criteria should not be excluded.

The review plea also expressed concern about how the requirement may affect candidates from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities. It questioned whether there was sufficient objective data to justify making three years of practice mandatory.

[Read Order]