A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court (SC) of India challenging its May 20, 2025, judgment that mandates three years of legal practice at the Bar as a minimum eligibility criterion for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Advocate-on-Record Kunal Yadav has filed the petition on behalf of the petitioner Chandra Sen Yadav, a young judicial service aspirant.
Chandra Sen Yadav, an intervenor and a recent law graduate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 2022, represents a large number of aggrieved aspirants.
The petition argues that the direction issued by the court violates Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution of India as it imposes an “arbitrary and unreasonable condition” on candidates.
As per Direction No 7 in the judgment, “All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant 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.”
Advocate Kunal Yadav pointed out that as of now, “the Civil Judge examination is being conducted by different State Public Service Commissions, and in none of the advertisements is there any such eligibility criterion of three years’ mandatory practice.” He further added that the petition seeks the recall of Writ Petition 1022 of 1989.
Explaining why the petition requests the rule be implemented only from 2027, if not revoked, Yadav said, “The judgment, if passed, will apply not in retrospective but in prospective. Those who are about to graduate after the 2025 academic year will have to wait for three more years to become eligible for the Civil Judge examination.”
The petition also challenges the judgment on the grounds that it violates Article 309 of the Constitution, which empowers the Parliament or State Legislatures to frame rules regarding recruitment and conditions of public service. “This judgment amounts to judicial overreach,” said Yadav, adding, “Lakhs of students who are law graduates are being affected and their voices have not been considered.”
Strong criticism was also directed at the court’s observation that fresh law graduates are “raw” and lack courtroom experience. “Many of my colleagues who cleared the exam right after graduation are now sitting as Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi. There is no data or factual record that supports the view that fresh graduates perform poorly,” said Yadav.
The review petition highlights that the Supreme Court relied heavily on affidavits filed by various high courts while delivering the judgment. However, it argues that opposing views such as those from the State of Nagaland, the State of Tripura, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and the State of Chhattisgarh were not adequately considered.
The petition thus seeks either a complete revocation of the mandatory three-year legal practice rule or a phased implementation starting in 2027, to avoid penalising the fresh graduates. The advocate further added that a demand for a complete revocation of the three-year practice norm is also under his consideration.
The petition argues that the court “unilaterally decided to ignore” key policy documents and past recommendations such as the Shetty Commission Report, which had reviewed and cited inputs from the Law Commission.
The 2nd All India Judges Association v Union of India (AIJA) in 1991 had initially introduced the three-year practice requirement. However, this was subsequently removed by the 3rd AIJA in 1993, a position that had remained untouched for decades. “This historical context was completely foregone in the recent judgment,” said Advocate Kunal Yadav.
He further pointed to the Shetty Commission’s backing of the Law Commission recommendations, which supported the entry of fresh law graduates into judicial service, given that they receive institutional training. “If institutional internship and training are ensured, there’s no basis to bar fresh graduates,” he said, calling the court’s imposition “arbitrary.”
The petition also highlights a major constitutional violation, stating that Article 14 has been “totally infringed.” It argues that the ruling fails the test of reasonable classification laid down in State of West Bengal v.Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75). “There exists no intelligible differentia between a competent fresh law graduate and one with three years of legal practice, especially when both undergo the same competitive recruitment and judicial training,” says the petition and reiterated Yadav.
Additionally, the rule is challenged under Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to practice any profession. Weaker sections and women candidates are often not allowed to study for long years, and this judgment could hinder their dreams and aspirations to pursue their legal career after years of toil and hardship. “Careers of many fresh law graduates are at stake,” he said
Rahul Rajeev, a practicing advocate at the SC, said, “This is going to be tough for those legal aspirants who cannot afford to spend another three years to secure their career.”
“This judgment will hit those who’ve been preparing for years and now face a sudden policy shift very hard,” he noted, “Careers of thousands of young, hardworking graduates are now at stake.”
The petition also questions the requirement for a certificate from a senior advocate with 10 or more years of experience to validate the three-year practice. “This requirement could be misused. If someone has been in practice for over a decade, it becomes easy to help known individuals obtain a certificate, regardless of their merit. It’s unfair and unreasonable,” Yadav said.
Drawing a comparison with the Civil Services, Yadav asked, “In UPSC, if even 21-year-olds fresh graduates can apply for administrative services, why this disparity for law graduates?”
The review petition has also demanded an open hearing, urging the court to allow detailed deliberation on a matter that has wide-reaching consequences. “The voices of the stakeholders, including law universities, students and fresh graduates, were completely disregarded.” He also hinted at the clear violation of Article 309 by the court and judicial overreach as the power to frame recruitment rules vests with the legislature.
Yadav stressed that judicial training manuals and state academy curricula, such as those in Delhi, Chhattisgarh, and Karnataka, already prescribe one to two years of mandatory training for new judges. “When that training exists, how can one argue that fresh graduates are unprepared? There is no data or study to prove that they underperform. No such evaluation has ever been held.”
The matter is listed for hearing on July 15. Notably, the issue has a long history, dating back to a 1989 case that addressed judicial service conditions, although it did not mention mandatory legal practice. The three-year clause first appeared in 1991, only to be withdrawn later.
“This is not just a review of a judgment,” Yadav concluded, “It’s a plea to restore fairness, opportunity, and constitutional balance.”
