The Supreme Court has allowed open court hearing of review petitions challenging its judgment that mandates a minimum of three years’ practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial service posts.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on February 10. The Bench permitted oral arguments in the review proceedings.
Ordinarily, review petitions are decided in chambers without oral submissions. Open court hearings in review matters are granted only in exceptional cases.
The review petitions are listed for hearing on February 26. The Court has issued notice to all States and High Courts.
Background Of The May Judgment
In May last year, the Supreme Court restored the requirement of three years’ practice as an advocate for eligibility to entry-level judicial service posts.
This requirement had been relaxed in 2002. The Court held that prior courtroom experience ensures competence and maturity among trial-level judicial officers.
Grounds Raised In Review Petition
Chandra Sen Yadav, a practising advocate, filed one of the review petitions in June last year.
The petitioner argues that the Supreme Court imposed the three-year practice condition without properly considering key observations of the Shetty Commission.
According to the petition, the Court relied primarily on affidavits filed by certain High Courts and State Governments that supported reinstating the practice requirement. However, it did not fully consider opposing recommendations from:
- The States of Nagaland, Tripura and Chhattisgarh
- The High Court of Punjab and Haryana
The petitioner contends that the Shetty Commission recommended removal of the practice requirement. The Commission noted that court visits and internships are already part of the law curriculum. It also observed that selected candidates undergo training before assuming judicial office.
Therefore, the petitioner submits that additional litigation practice may not be necessary.
Absence Of Empirical Data
The review plea further argues that the judgment does not rely on statistical data or studies showing that fresh law graduates perform poorly as judges.
The petitioner contends that the Court did not consider the number of fresh graduates who have successfully served as judicial officers after completing training.
According to the plea, the decision is based on subjective perceptions rather than objective material.
Constitutional Concerns Raised
The petitioner also challenges the ruling on constitutional grounds.
It is argued that the three-year practice requirement disproportionately affects candidates from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities, including SCs, STs and OBCs.
The plea further states that the rule arbitrarily excludes law graduates working in:
- Law firms
- Public sector undertakings
- Corporate legal roles
This exclusion applies despite their relevant legal experience.
The petitioner argues that by imposing a uniform eligibility condition across all States and High Courts without legislative backing, the Supreme Court has assumed a policy-making role beyond the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution.
It is further contended that the judgment creates a blanket disqualification for all law graduates without three years of practice. According to the petitioner, this violates the right to practise any profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The restriction, the plea argues, is arbitrary and unreasonable as it is not based on objective criteria.
