The Supreme Court on Thursday called for feedback from all High Courts, National Law Universities (NLUs), and other law schools across the country on the minimum three-year law practice criterion it had mandated for entry into the judicial services.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing an application filed by Bhumika Trust, seeking an exemption from the practice requirement for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) appearing in the entry-level judicial services examinations.
The petitioner argued that specially-abled law graduates face considerable hurdles in gaining legal practice experience as lawyers are often reluctant to employ them. Hence, the minimum practice requirement unfairly disadvantages them and should be relaxed for this category.
However, the bench expressed reservations about creating a separate carve-out. “Any such enabling criterion should be the same for all law graduates,” the court said. It noted that granting exemptions for specific categories might inadvertently create a sense of inferiority among them once they enter judicial service.
The petitioner also cited the example of Madhya Pradesh, where such exemptions have reportedly been allowed. The court, however, remained firm on the need for uniform rules, warning that a piecemeal approach may lead to inconsistency and unfairness in the recruitment process across states.
Highlighting the larger implications of the issue, the bench said:
“We find that young students are disappointed and demoralised as well with this decision. We are planning to get feedback from the students in the National Law Universities (NLUs) and all High Courts. If at all any variation is required, we will do it for everyone.”
Accordingly, the court directed all High Courts to place the order before their respective Chief Justices and called upon High Courts, NLUs, and other law schools to submit their suggestions and opinions within four weeks.
The present proceedings follow the Supreme Court’s May 20, 2023 judgment delivered by a bench headed by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, which barred fresh law graduates from appearing in judicial service exams, mandating at least three years of practice at the Bar.
That verdict was based on inputs from almost all High Courts, which revealed that the recruitment of fresh graduates had not yielded successful outcomes. Many such recruits were reportedly found to display “behavioural and temperamental problems” after joining judicial service.
In its observations, the Court had noted that exposure to courtroom practice, engagement with litigants, and handling legal briefs were essential for young lawyers to develop sensitivity, maturity, and clarity in the decision-making process expected of judicial officers.
“It would bring in a sensitivity to human problems, more clarity in the decision-making process and educate them on the role of the Bar in justice dispensation,” the judgment had stated.
The Court had also acknowledged the limited opportunities available to young graduates but held that such experience was indispensable for building a competent and responsive judiciary.
With the present move, the apex court has opened the door for a broader consultative process that could potentially reshape the eligibility framework for judicial services, ensuring it is inclusive yet grounded in the requirements of judicial competence and sensitivity. The matter will be taken up after the responses are received from all concerned stakeholders.
