Uncategorized

The Supreme Court permitted an open court hearing of review petitions challenging its decision to mandate a minimum of three years’ practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial service appointments In a significant procedural

by Sekar Reporter · February 22, 2026

[22/02, 10:07] sekarreporter1: ”

TOP STORIES

NEWS UPDATES
COLUMNS
BAR SPEAKS
ARTICLES
CARTOONS
VIDEOS
More

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

Supreme Court of India

By –
Sukriti Mishra
|
21 Feb 2026 9:30 AM
The Supreme Court permitted an open court hearing of review petitions challenging its decision to mandate a minimum of three years’ practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial service appointments
In a significant procedural move, the Supreme Court has allowed open court hearings in review petitions challenging its judgment mandating a minimum of three years’ practice at the Bar for entry-level appointments in the 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.

Also Read – Nationwide Bar Reforms: Supreme Court Tightens Focus, Orders Consensus Draft
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.

Also Read – Sonam Wangchuk alleges incorrect translation of his speeches; Centre asks SC for time to respond
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.

Also Read – Supreme Court On Freebies: Hampering India’s Development, States Running Into Deficit
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.

Also Read – Supreme Court rebukes ‘Police-Politician Nexus’ in murder probe against YSR Congress Party MLA Udaya Bhaskar
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 criteri
[22/02, 10:07] Meta AI: The Supreme Court is set to hear review petitions challenging its decision to mandate a minimum of three years’ practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial service appointments. The court has allowed an open court hearing, scheduled for February 26, and notices have been issued to all States and High Courts. ¹ ²

The petitioners argue that the three-year practice requirement is arbitrary and unfair, as it overlooks the rigorous selection process and training already in place for judicial officers. They also point out that many successful judges were appointed without extensive practice at the Bar.

The Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment restored the three-year practice requirement, citing the need for prior courtroom experience to ensure competence and maturity among trial court judges. However, the review petitions contend that this decision disregards key recommendations from the Shetty Commission and the success of young judges appointed without extensive practice.

Would you like to know more about the implications of this ruling or the Shetty Commission’s recommendations?