The Supreme Court will hear review petitions challenging the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts on March 14, 2026. Several high courts have supported retaining the rule while some suggest relaxation for specially-abled candidates.
THE Supreme Court will tomorrow take up review petitions challenging its May 2025 judgment that restored the mandatory requirement of three years’ legal practice for candidates seeking to become Civil Judges (Junior Division). The case has drawn sharp submissions from High Courts across the country, most of which have backed retaining the eligibility condition.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice A.G. Masih will hear the matter. The review petitions include a plea by Bhumika Trust seeking exemption for persons with benchmark disabilities from the three-year rule.
Ten High Courts have filed their responses to the Court’s call for suggestions, and all have supported the mandatory practice requirement as a uniform eligibility condition. The Delhi High Court informed the Court that amendments to the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, were notified on February 6, 2026, reintroducing the requirement. Its Rules Committee favoured maintaining uniformity to avoid disparity among candidates.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Rules Committee observed that entry-level judicial officers adjudicate matters affecting life, liberty, and property, and require practical exposure to court procedure, evidence appreciation, and drafting of orders. Relaxation, it cautioned, could lower entry benchmarks and lead to varying recruitment standards.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh drew a distinction between eligibility and suitability. A committee constituted by its Chief Justice opined that, “While determining the suitability of specially abled persons for being appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division), some relaxation can be given so as to achieve the objective of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for removing barriers that are caused to the entry of specially abled persons in the judicial service. However, the eligibility for entering the service cannot be altered for such candidates.”
The committee further warned that, “if relaxation of requirement of practice at Bar is granted to the candidates of specially abled category in absence of a principled basis, then similar demand may emanate from other reserved category candidates on various grounds, which may make it difficult to maintain the eligibility conditions uniformly across all categories of candidates.”
Not all High Courts, however, took an absolutist position. The Meghalaya High Court suggested that while the condition should not be completely dispensed with, the Court may consider reducing the practice period or granting age relaxation of three to five years for specially-abled candidates. The Tripura High Court went further, supporting the complete dispensation of the requirement for such candidates.
The Karnataka High Court’s Accessibility Committee recommended retaining the mandatory requirement but suggested directions to High Court accessibility committees to assist lawyers with disabilities in securing professional engagement in line with Sections 19 and 23 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Law universities presented divergent views. The National Law School of India University expressed the view that the three-year practice requirement may be unnecessary given the institutional training that selected candidates undergo. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, reported findings of a stakeholder survey based on 256 responses: approximately 72 per cent opposed the mandatory rule, around 16 per cent supported it, and about 9 per cent expressed partial agreement. The university suggested strengthening judicial academies, supervised probation, and performance-based confirmation instead of rigid pre-entry waiting periods.
During an earlier hearing of the review petitions last month, Chief Justice Surya Kant had orally observed that the three-year rule was disproportionately affecting women candidates.
The review petitioners have contended that the direction lacks empirical backing, disproportionately affects candidates from economically weaker and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, and results in an unreasonable restriction on the right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Bhumika Trust, through its President and Advocate Jayant Singh Raghav, has argued that the rule operates with disproportionate exclusionary effect upon candidates with visual, locomotor, and multiple disabilities, violating equality guarantees under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
The petition submits that many disabled law graduates are unable to gain litigation experience due to structural barriers such as inaccessible courtrooms, the absence of screen-reader-friendly digital filing systems, and a lack of inclusive infrastructure.
The Supreme Court had in February permitted an open court hearing of the review petitions, a rare procedural step since review petitions are ordinarily decided in chambers without oral arguments. Notices were issued to all States and High Courts.
Background
The three-year practice requirement has a chequered history. In 1991, in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court first mandated that candidates for entry-level judicial posts must have at least three years’ standing as advocates, reasoning that familiarity with court functioning was essential for judicial competence.
In 2002, acting on the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, the Court relaxed this requirement. The Commission had identified the three-year rule as a barrier to entry, arguing that it discouraged talented candidates and contributed to a lower-quality applicant pool. The Court permitted fresh law graduates to appear for judicial service examinations, provided they underwent rigorous institutional training upon selection.
Over the next two decades, however, concerns mounted. Several High Courts reported that fresh law graduates entering the judiciary exhibited inadequate exposure to courtroom dynamics, poor decision-making skills, and behavioural issues. The majority of High Courts and State governments came to view the 2002 relaxation as counterproductive.
On May 20, 2025, a bench headed by then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai restored the three-year practice requirement. The Court held that judges, from day one, adjudicate matters involving life, liberty, property, and reputation, and that book knowledge and pre-service training cannot substitute the practical courtroom experience gained by working with seniors and observing court proceedings.
The judgment directed all State governments to amend their judicial service rules to incorporate the three-year condition for future recruitments. It clarified that the practice period would be counted from the date of provisional enrolment with the Bar Council, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination. Experience as a law clerk to judges would also count toward the requirement. The Court further mandated that selected candidates must undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.
The rule was made prospective, exempting ongoing recruitment processes. Only the High Courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh had opposed its restoration.
Multiple review petitions followed. Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav contended that the judgment overlooked the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, relied disproportionately on affidavits from High Courts supporting the rule, and ignored contrary views from States like Nagaland, Tripura, and Chhattisgarh. The petition argued that no empirical data existed to show that advocates with less than three years’ practice performed poorly as judges, and that the rigorous selection process comprising preliminary test, main examination, and viva voce was sufficient to filter competent candidates.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves also filed a review petition, and a separate plea was moved on behalf of persons with disabilities. The Court tagged these petitions together for hearing.
The case is now at a critical juncture. Tomorrow’s hearing will determine whether the three-year rule survives intact, is relaxed for certain categories, or is reconsidered altogether.
Case title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and connected cases, W.P.(C) No. 001110/2025
Leave a Reply