Supreme Court to Hear in Open Court Review Pleas Against 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service

The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran passed the order on February 10, directing that the review petitions be heard in open court on February 26.

Notices have been issued to all States and High Courts.

Review petitions before the Supreme Court are ordinarily decided in chambers without oral arguments. Open court hearings in review proceedings are rare and permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

The review challenges the Court’s May 2025 judgment restoring the requirement of a minimum three years’ practice as an advocate for eligibility to entry-level judicial posts. The ruling revived a pre-2002 position, holding that prior courtroom experience was essential to ensure competence and maturity among trial court judges.

One of the review petitions, filed by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, contends that the judgment overlooked key observations of the Shetty Commission, which had recommended removal of the mandatory practice requirement. The petitioner argues that law degree curricula already include court visits and internships, and that judicial officers undergo structured training before assuming office, making the three-year litigation mandate unnecessary.

It is further contended that the judgment relied heavily on affidavits filed by certain High Courts and State Governments supporting reinstatement of the practice condition, while insufficiently considering contrary views expressed by the States of Nagaland and Tripura, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and the State of Chhattisgarh.

The petition filed through AoR Kunal Yadav underscores that the Supreme Court disregarded key recommendations made by the Shetty Commission in 1999 and previously upheld in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, which advocated for extensive training for young graduates instead of a rigid practice requirement.

Yadav further argues that the Court's view, labelling fresh graduates as “raw”, disregards the rigorous, multi-layered selection process already in place, which comprises a preliminary test, main examination, and viva voce. Furthermore, institutional training upon selection can adequately prepare fresh graduates for the responsibilities of a judgeship.

The petition highlights a lack of empirical data or objective criteria to show that advocates with less than 3 years of practice perform poorly as judges. It points to the success of many young judges who were appointed without extensive practice at the Bar and underscores the principle of reasonable classification under State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), arguing there is no rational basis to treat fresh graduates differently from those with 3 years’ practice.

The Review Applicant also requests the Supreme Court to consider applying the 3-year practice criterion from 2027 onwards to avoid unfairly affecting graduates who made their career choices under previous conditions.

The petition underscores that the impugned ruling has a direct impact on the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, the right to fairness, equal opportunity in employment, and freedom to pursue a profession and urges the Court to reconsider its decision in light of fairness, empirical data, and constitutional principle.

Case Title: Chandrasen Yadav v. Union of India and others

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran

Order Date: February 10, 2026