Supreme : Court Seeks Nationwide Feedback on Three-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Services
Supreme: The Supreme Court of India has initiated a significant national-level discussion on the eligibility criteria for entry-level judicial services examinations, focusing particularly on the requirement of a minimum three-year law practice. This move has wide implications for law graduates, judicial aspirants, and legal education institutions across the country.
Background of the Three-Year Practice Requirement
In May last year, the Supreme Court introduced a major reform by barring fresh law graduates from appearing in entry-level judicial services examinations. The court mandated that candidates must have at least three years of active legal practice before becoming eligible. The intent behind this decision was to ensure that future members of the judiciary possess sufficient practical exposure to courtroom procedures, client interactions, and real-world legal challenges.
While the decision was aimed at strengthening the quality and preparedness of the judiciary, it sparked debate among students and young professionals who felt that the rule delayed their career progression and created additional barriers.
Petition Seeking Relaxation for PwD Candidates
The recent hearing was triggered by a petition filed by Bhumika Trust, which requested an exemption for law graduates belonging to the Persons with Disabilities category. The petition argued that many PwD law graduates face systemic discrimination in the legal profession, making it extremely difficult for them to secure opportunities under practicing advocates. As a result, fulfilling the three-year practice requirement becomes disproportionately challenging for them.
According to the petitioners, without a relaxation in the eligibility condition, PwD candidates are effectively excluded from judicial services, despite possessing the necessary academic qualifications and merit.
Supreme Court’s View on Uniformity
During the hearing, the bench observed that creating category-specific exemptions could lead to unintended consequences. The court emphasized that any enabling provision or relaxation should apply uniformly to all law graduates, rather than being restricted to a particular group.
The judges also referred to a precedent where a similar exemption had been granted to specially-abled candidates in Madhya Pradesh. However, they expressed concern that selective relaxations might cause those benefiting from them to feel inferior or singled out once they enter judicial service. The court stressed the importance of dignity, equality, and uniform standards within the judiciary.
Consultation with High Courts and Law Universities
Acknowledging the widespread concern and dissatisfaction among law students, the Supreme Court stated that many young aspirants feel disappointed and demoralized by the current rule. In response, the court decided to seek comprehensive feedback from all High Courts, National Law Universities, and other law schools across India.
The objective of this exercise is to gather diverse perspectives from stakeholders who are directly connected with legal education and judicial administration. By doing so, the court aims to gain a broader and more informed understanding of how the three-year practice requirement impacts students, institutions, and the justice delivery system as a whole.
Possibility of a Holistic Review
The court made it clear that before taking any final decision on exemptions or modifications, it wants to adopt a holistic approach. Collecting opinions and suggestions from across the country may help identify practical difficulties, regional variations, and potential alternatives that balance experience with accessibility.
Importantly, the bench indicated that if any variation or relaxation is ultimately found necessary, it would be considered for all candidates, not just a specific category. This approach reflects the court’s emphasis on fairness and consistency across states.
Other Key Developments Noted by the Court
Apart from the judicial services issue, the Supreme Court also addressed other important matters. In one case, the court overturned the acquittal of a murder accused, clarifying that a credible dying declaration can be sufficient for conviction even in the absence of a strong motive, especially when the evidence is direct and trustworthy.
In another development, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the court about the formation of a high-level committee to examine cases related to digital arrest scams. The panel has been tasked with studying real-time challenges faced by enforcement agencies, reviewing existing legal provisions, and considering expert advice to tackle the growing threat of cyber-enabled fraud.