Controversial Supreme Court Verdict on 3-Year Practice Rule Faces Review Petition

New Delhi: The recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the 3-year practice rule for judicial service recruitment has stirred fresh legal controversy as a review petition challenging the verdict has now been officially filed. The move has reignited a nationwide debate among law graduates, aspirants, and legal professionals who argue that the ruling imposes undue barriers to entering judicial services.

Review Petition Challenges Validity of 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service

In its earlier verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the rule requiring candidates to complete at least three years of practice as an advocate before applying for judicial services in several states. The judgment was viewed by many as a move to ensure experienced and practical minds join the judiciary. However, critics claim it overlooks deserving fresh law graduates and restricts fair opportunity.

The newly filed review petition aims to reconsider this ruling, emphasizing the broader impact it has on inclusivity, equal opportunity, and access to judicial careers. Petitioners argue that the 3-year practice rule for judicial service lacks uniform implementation across the nation and poses logistical challenges for new graduates, especially those from underprivileged backgrounds.

Aspirants and Legal Experts Voice Concerns

The announcement of the review petition has sparked renewed conversations in law campuses and legal circles. Several aspirants have taken to social media to voice their disapproval of the 3-year rule, calling it “elitist” and “exclusionary.” They argue that practical experience, while valuable, should not be made a mandatory precondition for entering judicial service, particularly when academic merit and a robust selection process can ensure competence.

Legal experts, however, are divided. Some back the Supreme Court’s original verdict, claiming it improves the quality of judges by adding courtroom experience. Others agree with the petitioners, noting that competence should be assessed holistically and not just based on the duration of legal practice.

Implications of the 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service Recruitment

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the review petition, the ruling could either be reaffirmed or overturned, significantly influencing the future of judicial recruitment in India. A decision in favor of the petitioners might open doors for thousands of fresh graduates, while a reaffirmation could mean law graduates must wait and practice before seeking a judicial position.

States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and others have already adopted the 3-year clause in their recruitment rules, while some still allow fresh graduates. This disparity across state recruitment policies adds complexity to the issue and underscores the need for a more unified national policy.

Students Demand Clarity and Uniformity

The petition also urges the apex court to consider the psychological and financial impact the rule imposes on law graduates. Many students invest years in preparing for judicial service exams immediately after graduation. The imposition of an additional three-year wait not only delays careers but can also demotivate a large segment of aspirants.

Law student bodies and several bar associations are reportedly backing the move, demanding clarity and uniformity in judicial recruitment rules. Some have even requested the Law Commission of India to intervene and provide recommendations.

What Lies Ahead?

As the Supreme Court deliberates on whether to accept the review petition, the legal community watches closely. A reconsideration of the 3-year practice rule for judicial service could reshape judicial recruitment norms for years to come.

This case reflects the ongoing evolution of India’s judicial system, which must strike a delicate balance between maintaining quality and ensuring accessibility for the next generation of judges.