Colin Gonsalves files review petition in Supreme Court against verdict on 3-year practice rule for judicial service

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves files review petition in Supreme Court against verdict on 3-year practice rule for judicial service as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). The ruling came in the case All India Judges Association & Ors v. Union of India.

A Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, with Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, delivered the decision on May 20, 2025. It held that candidates entering judicial service must have at least three years of prior legal practice. The Court instructed all High Courts and State governments to update their service rules accordingly. However, this condition would not apply to recruitment processes already initiated before the ruling.

The review petition, filed through Advocate Satya Mitra, contests the decision on 17 grounds. It argues that the Court overlooked five Law Commission reports issued between 1924 and 1986, all of which concluded that compulsory legal practice is not essential for selecting competent judges.

Additionally, the petition highlights the recommendations of the Second Judicial Pay Commission (2022), which suggested further consultation before introducing such eligibility criteria. The plea emphasizes that India’s judicial education system has significantly evolved, with State Judicial Academies offering comprehensive pre-service training since 2002. These programs include residential courses, practical attachments, and instruction in procedural law, preparing candidates effectively for judicial roles without prior litigation experience.

The petition also raises procedural concerns, stating that affidavits submitted by High Courts during earlier hearings were not disclosed to the public or to potential candidates, limiting their ability to engage in the process meaningfully.

From a socio-economic perspective, the petition asserts that the three-year practice requirement may disadvantage certain groups. Women may face familial or societal pressures that make extended litigation experience impractical. Similarly, candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Economically Weaker Sections may lack access to mentors or financial means to support prolonged practice. Persons with disabilities and members of the transgender community also encounter barriers, such as the absence of accessible infrastructure in courts and legal workplaces.

The petition strongly criticizes the Bar Council of India (BCI), accusing it of failing to advocate for students and new entrants during the legal proceedings. It calls out the BCI’s silence on high enrollment costs, unregulated legal institutions, and delays in issuing practice certificates. According to the plea, these regulatory lapses contribute more to the decline in legal standards than the absence of practice experience.

The review petition requests the Court to stay its May 2025 judgment, enforce the new rule only from the 2026 recruitment cycle onward, relax upper age limits for impacted aspirants, and establish an expert committee to study the broader implications of the rule. It also seeks judicial direction for BCI reform in areas of law college accreditation and enrollment processes.

A similar plea was recently submitted by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, who argued that the mandatory practice rule violates equality provisions under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.