Court Examines Review Petitions Against Eligibility Rule
The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed reservations over the mandatory three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service recruitment. The Court specifically flagged its possible adverse impact on women candidates.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing review petitions challenging last year’s judgment. That ruling reinstated the requirement of a minimum three years’ practice as an advocate for eligibility to entry-level judicial posts.
CJI Highlights Women’s Representation in Judiciary
During the hearing, the Chief Justice emphasised the significant presence of women in the judicial service. He noted that nearly 60% of judicial officers are women.
Describing the issue as one of serious concern, the CJI cautioned that the rule may unintentionally discourage young talent. He warned that it could also create a “vacuum” of three years between graduation and eligibility.
Social Pressures May Affect Women Aspirants
The Chief Justice pointed out that many women aspirants face social constraints related to marriage and family responsibilities. These factors, he observed, may hinder their ability to complete the mandated period of practice.
He remarked that several young women remain anxious about whether their families would permit them to fulfil the three-year requirement. According to him, women constitute a vital pool of meritorious candidates, and the rule could generate uncertainty about long-term eligibility.
Concerns Over Shrinking Talent Pool
Raising broader institutional issues, the CJI questioned whether the current framework ensures access to high-calibre candidates. He observed that excluding fresh law graduates from recruitment cycles could narrow the applicant pool.
The Chief Justice noted that such a system may leave only repeat or secondary aspirants in the selection process. While reiterating the importance of courtroom experience, he stressed that it must be structured carefully. The framework, he said, should not exclude capable candidates or create avoidable recruitment gaps.
High Courts Asked to Respond
The Bench has sought responses from the Registrars General of the High Courts in connection with the review petitions.
The issue has also received attention beyond the courtroom. Recently, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, speaking at a public event, stated that the impact of the three-year practice mandate on women aspirants requires close examination.
Background of the 3-Year Practice Rule
In May last year, the Supreme Court restored the requirement of a minimum three years’ practice for appointment to entry-level judicial posts. The ruling revived the pre-2002 position.
The Court held that prior courtroom experience is essential to ensure competence and maturity among trial court judges.
