Review petition in Supreme Court challenges verdict on 3-year practice rule for judicial service

A review petition has been moved before the Supreme Court against its recent judgment requiring three years of practice as a lawyer to be eligible for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment [All India Judges Association and ors v. Union of India]..The plea has been moved by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, who argued that fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 stand infringed due to the imposition of the condition.Yadav has urged the Court to implement the mandatory three-year practice rule only from 2027 to avoid unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023–2025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria. "Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution," the plea states..In its verdict passed on May 20, the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran directed the High Courts and state governments to amend the service rules "to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination".However, the Court also ordered that requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the High Court had already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of the judgment..The judgment has received criticism, with some arguing that it may force women candidates to abandon or delay their judicial ambitions. The review plea argues that the direction mandating a minimum of three years of legal practice disproportionately impacts aspirants from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities, particularly Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC). It also states that there was no comprehensive data placed before the Court to establish that fresh law graduates or candidates without three years of Bar experience are underperforming in judicial roles."The absence of any objective assessment and reliance instead on broad, opinion-based statements renders the decision vulnerable to review," it states.It is also argued that the direction to amend service rules uniformly across all states and High Courts amounts to encroachment upon the powers of state legislatures and public service commissions..The plea has been filed through advocate Kunal Yadav.