Supreme Court to hear plea seeking to exempt PWD persons from 3-Year Practice Rule For Judicial Service

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a plea to declare the mandatory three-year practice requirement for eligibility to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)—as upheld by the judgment dated 20.05.2025 in All India Judges’ Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio insofar as it applies to persons with benchmark disabilities.

In its order the Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that in March 2025 the court had in SUO Motu Writ Petition No.2 of 2024 (In re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services) had directed for suitable amendment in the minimum eligibility conditions for appointment of judicial officers at the junior division level. Subsequently, the bench noted, vide the impugned judgment in May 2025 it laid down a mandatory condition of three years’ practice at the bar has been prescribed to acquire eligibility to appear in the competitive examination.

"It prima facie seems that the eligibility condition must be uniform instead of being at variance for different categories of candidates who aspire to compete for judicial services. However, before taking any holistic view in this regard, it seems that the opinions/suggestions by all the High Courts will be extremely useful. Similarly, suggestions can also be invited from the Law Universities/National Law Schools. We, accordingly, direct the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts to place this order before their respective Hon’ble Chief Justices and also circulate this order among the Law Universities/National Law Schools located within their respective territorial jurisdiction. The High Courts, as well as the Law Universities/Law Schools, are requested to send their invaluable suggestions within four weeks," court has ordered while listing the matter for further consideration on February 26, 2026.

Petitioner Bhumika Trust through President and Advocate Jayant Singh Raghav, submits that the impugned judgment, while purportedly promoting professional competence within the judiciary, operates with disproportionate exclusionary effect upon candidates with visual, locomotor, and multiple disabilities, thereby violating the equality and non-discrimination guarantees enshrined under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the statutory mandate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

"This exclusion inflicts a systemic and continuing injury upon the public interest, as it erodes the constitutional promise of equality (Article 14), the guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment (Article 16), and the right to life with dignity (Article 21). When read in the light of Article 38, which enjoins the State to promote the welfare of the people and secure a social order informed by justice—social, economic, and political—the impugned requirement stands in stark contradiction to the vision of an inclusive and egalitarian Republic embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution," the plea states.

Court has been told that the discriminatory effect of the said requirement is neither incidental nor peripheral it perpetuates a systemic exclusion of qualified and meritorious candidates with disabilities, denying them equal access to judicial institutions and diminishing the representative diversity of the judiciary itself. It is states that such exclusion undermines the transformative constitutional ethos, which mandates that governance and institutional design be aligned with the principles of inclusivity, substantive equality, and accessibility.

"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, making the application of the rule disproportionately burdensome and discriminatory", the petition submits.

The Supreme Court in May 2025, in a landmark judgment aimed at raising the bar for entry into the judicial services, had restored the three-year minimum practice requirement for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division), declaring that prior courtroom exposure is crucial for effective judicial functioning. The three-judge Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the verdict, which outlined eight key directives intended to standardize recruitment and promotion mechanisms across High Courts and State governments.

Advocates Srikrishna Kumar Yadav, Megha Tolia, Ragini Kumari and Srishti Sinha appeared before Court on behalf of Bhumika Trust.

Case Title: Bhumika Trust vs Union of India

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Bishnoi

Hearing Date: January 15, 2026