Review Petition Challenging Supreme Court’s Mandate on Three Years’ Bar Practice for Judicial Service

A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court contesting the May 20 judgment that reinstated the requirement for judicial aspirants to have at least three years of legal practice before applying for entry-level judicial roles, such as Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner argues that this rule, when applied immediately, penalizes fresh graduates from the 2023–2025 batches who had trained under previous eligibility norms, causing undue hardship and violating Articles 14’s principles of fairness and equal opportunity.

The petition, filed by advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, contends that the Court overlooked key findings of the Shetty Commission, which had recommended scrapping the experience requirement based on law students’ curriculum and mandatory training. Moreover, Yadav claims the judgment was arrived at without data or empirical evidence demonstrating that fresh graduates underperformed compared to those with practical experience, and that several High Courts and State Governments opposed the mandate—these views were not fully considered.

Yadav further asserts that the three-year practice rule disproportionately affects those from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, including SC/ST/OBC candidates, and excludes individuals working in relevant legal roles such as law firms or public sector enterprises. The plea requests either a deferment of the mandate until 2027 or its complete reassessment to avoid retrospective injustices and preserve equal opportunity.