SC Urges To Postpone 3-Year Bar Rule For Judiciary Exams To 2027

Delhi Court

A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court contesting its recent ruling that mandates a 3-year legal practice requirement for candidates appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment exams.

The plea, moved by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, argues that the abrupt enforcement of this rule violates the fundamental rights to equality and equal opportunity under Articles 14 & 16 of the Indian Constitution.

Call For Postponement To 2027 To Protect Recent Graduates

The petitioner has urged the Court to defer the implementation of the 3-year practice rule until 2027. This adjustment would safeguard recent law graduates (2023–2025) who had prepared for the exams under the previous eligibility criteria.
The plea emphasizes that immediate enforcement would cause undue hardship, undermining principles of fairness and legitimate expectation.

Criticism Over Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Groups

The review plea highlights concerns that the new rule disproportionately affects aspirants from economically weaker backgrounds and socially disadvantaged communities, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

Furthermore, it may push women out of the race as the societal pressure on them may not allow them to prepare for the exam with such uncertainty now.

It argues that the judgment lacks sufficient data to prove that fresh graduates perform poorly in judicial roles, making the decision vulnerable to reconsideration.

Judgment

On May 20, a court bench led by CJI BR Gavai directed High Courts and state governments to amend service rules, requiring 3 years of legal practice for eligibility. However, the ruling exempted recruitment processes already underway before the judgment.

Alleged Encroachment On State Legislative Powers

The petition further contends that the Court’s directive to uniformly amend service rules across states infringes upon the authority of state legislatures and public service commissions. It asserts that such a sweeping mandate disregards regional variations in judicial recruitment needs and procedures.

The review petition seeks a re-evaluation of the judgment, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that protects aspirants’ rights while maintaining judicial standards.