Supreme Court reserves verdict on 3-year law practice rule for judicial service

• The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on review petitions challenging its three-year law practice rule for judicial service.
• The rule, introduced in May 2025, mandates candidates to have at least three years of legal practice experience to be eligible for judicial service positions.
• Multiple review petitions have been filed against the direction, arguing that the requirement is unfair and disproportionately affects certain groups.
• The Court's verdict may affect the eligibility criteria for upcoming recruitment processes, including the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on review petitions challenging its three-year law practice rule for judicial service, leaving many wondering about the fate of upcoming recruitment processes.

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on review petitions challenging its three-year law practice rule for judicial service, leaving many wondering about the fate of upcoming recruitment processes. The rule, which mandates candidates to have at least three years of legal practice experience, was introduced in a May 2025 judgment and has been met with opposition from various quarters. The review petitions, filed by several individuals, including Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, argue that the requirement is unfair and disproportionately affects certain groups. As the Court deliberates on this matter, lawyers and compliance officers are keeping a close eye on the developments, anticipating potential implications for judicial service positions.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment that introduced the three-year law practice requirement as a condition for entry into judicial service. The ruling, which applied prospectively, meant that candidates who had already initiated recruitment processes before the date of the judgment would not be affected. However, those who were yet to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination would need to meet this new criterion. The Court also directed all High Courts and State governments to amend their service rules to incorporate the requirement, sparking a wave of review petitions challenging the direction.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran had earlier issued notice on the review petitions and allowed them to be heard in open court. The Court's decision to reserve its verdict has left many in the legal fraternity speculating about the potential impact on judicial appointments in India. As the recruitment process for Civil Judge (Junior Division) positions continues, lawyers and compliance officers are closely watching the developments, anticipating potential changes to eligibility criteria. With multiple review petitions filed against the three-year law practice rule, the Supreme Court's verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications for the Indian judiciary.

Lawyers and compliance officers should watch for the potential impact on upcoming recruitment processes, as the Supreme Court's verdict may affect the eligibility criteria for judicial service positions.

Source: Original reporting via [Source]