Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court’s Civil Judge Eligibility Ruling
A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court, contesting its recent decision regarding the eligibility criteria for entry-level judicial posts, particularly for the role of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Challenge to the Three-Year Practice Requirement
The core issue raised by the petitioner concerns the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement introduced for judicial service aspirants. The petitioner asserts that this criterion is not only burdensome but also fails to consider transitional fairness for students who had prepared under the previous eligibility norms.
Proposed Implementation Timeline: Start from 2027
To address the concern without reversing the judgment entirely, the petitioner suggests implementing the three-year practice condition from 2027. This would safeguard the interests of candidates who graduated between 2023 and 2025, allowing them to compete without being unfairly excluded.
Retroactive Hardships Violate Article 14 of the Constitution
A central argument in the review petition is that immediate enforcement of the practice requirement creates retrospective disadvantages, violating:
- Article 14 – Equality before the law
- Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations
- Principle of Equal Opportunity
Such retrospective changes, the petitioner argues, erode trust in the judicial recruitment process and hinder equitable access to public employment.
Reference to Shetty Commission’s Recommendations
The petitioner invokes the Shetty Commission Report, which had recommended eliminating the practice requirement for entry-level judges. The report emphasized that internships, moot courts, and court visits embedded in law school curricula already provide sufficient practical exposure.
Training Before Appointment Makes Practice Requirement Redundant
Another key contention is that judicial candidates undergo formal training at state judicial academies before appointment. Therefore, requiring three years of practice prior to selection seems redundant and unnecessary.
Conclusion: A Call for Fair Implementation
In summary, the review petition does not oppose the objective behind the three-year practice rule but seeks a balanced and phased enforcement, ensuring recent graduates are not unfairly penalized. The petition urges the Court to consider legal precedents, constitutional values, and practical realities in revisiting its decision.