“Violating Principles Of Fairness And Article 14”
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 16th June, A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the verdict on the 3-year practice rule for judicial exams, stating that “immediate enforcement violates Article 14 ” and causes unfair retrospective exclusion.
New Delhi: A review petition has been filed with the Supreme Court challenging its recent ruling that mandates three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for eligibility in Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment.
Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, who submitted the plea, contends that this requirement infringes upon fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Yadav has requested that the implementation of the three-year practice rule be postponed until 2027 to prevent the unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023–2025) who prepared according to the previous eligibility standards.
The petition asserts,
“Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution,”
Earlier, on May 20, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran instructed the High Courts and state governments to revise their service rules.
The amendment requires that candidates wishing to sit for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination must have practiced law for a minimum of three years to qualify.
Also Read: “Being Appointed as An Advocate Commissioner is an Honor”: Kerala High Court Stated
The Supreme Court mandated the rule that candidates must have at least three years of practice as an advocate before applying for entry-level judicial posts.
The Court clarified that this period of legal practice will be counted from the date of provisional enrollment as an advocate.
However, the Court clarified that this requirement would not apply to cases where the High Court had already begun the selection process for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) position prior to the date of the judgment.
The judgment has faced criticism, with some suggesting that it may compel women candidates to abandon or postpone their judicial aspirations.
Also Read: Supreme Court: Balancing Qualification and Experience| MP Judicial Service
The review petition contends that the requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice disproportionately affects candidates from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and socially marginalized communities, particularly Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
Additionally, the petition points out that there was no comprehensive data presented to the Court to demonstrate that recent law graduates or those without three years of Bar experience are underperforming in judicial positions.
It argues,
“The absence of any objective assessment and reliance instead on broad, opinion-based statements renders the decision vulnerable to review,”
Furthermore, the petition claims that the directive to amend service rules consistently across all states and High Courts infringes upon the authority of state legislatures and public service commissions.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 1022/1989)
