A Review Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its May 20, 2025 judgment that makes “3 years’ practice at the Bar” a mandatory condition for lawyers to appear in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination.

The Review Petitioner, Chandra Sen Yadav, a newly enrolled advocate and an aspiring judicial service candidate, contends that the ruling unfairly deprives a large pool of fresh law graduates of their opportunity to enter the judiciary.

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. 

The petition highlights numerous grounds for reconsideration:

-Lack of Empirical Basis: There is no data or study to show that advocates with 3 years’ practice perform better as judges than fresh graduates.
-Ignoring Shetty Commission’s Report: The Supreme Court disregarded key recommendations from the Shetty Commission, which advocated rigorous training instead of a rigid practice requirement.
-Encroachment on Legislative Domain
: The petition argues that prescribing service conditions uniformly across all states disregards their legislative and executive powers under Article 309 of the Constitution.
-Discrimination Against Fresh graduates: The 3-year practice criterion unfairly deprives a large pool of talented graduates, particularly from socially and economically weak backgrounds, from entering the judiciary immediately after their degree.
-Absence of Rational Nexus: There is no reasonable basis or empirical data to connect the 3-year practice requirement to the ability to perform duties of a civil judge.
-Neglected Shetty Report: The Supreme Court disregarded its own precedent in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, which supported direct recruitment of young graduates after rigorous training.
-Entry Barrier
: The condition would affect first-generation lawyers, women, and SC, ST, and OBC graduates more profoundly, adding an unfair barrier to their entry into the profession.
-Practical Impossibility: The petitioner highlights that this condition would force graduates to pursue practice under a senior advocate, adding dependency and vulnerability, and prohibit those employed in corporate legal roles or PSUs from applying.
-Non-Grandfathered Implementation: The Supreme Court made this applicable immediately, ignoring graduates of 2023 and 2024 who were already eligible under the previous criteria; a move challenged as unfair and unconstitutional.
-Evidence from Shetty Report: The petition underscores the Shetty Commission’s view that rigorous training can adequately prepare young graduates for the responsibilities of a civil judgeship, a view previously upheld by the Supreme Court.
-Classification Failure: The petitioner argues there is “no intelligible differentia” to treat advocates with 3 years’ practice differently from those without it, a violation of the principle laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) AIR SC 75.
-Equal Protection Principle: Furthermore, while administrative officers with no legal practice sometimes perform quasi-judicial roles, law graduates without 3 years’ practice are disqualified from even applying for judgeship, reflecting an irrational and arbitrary policy.

Case Title: Chandrasen Yadav v. Union of India & Others [Diary No. 33086 of 2025]

Tags: