3-Year Law Practice Rule Under Review by Supreme Court, Check Details

3-Year Law Practice Rule Under Review: The Supreme Court has agreed to review the mandatory 3-year law practice rule for eligibility in judicial service exams. A review petition and oral hearings have been allowed, giving relief to recent law graduates who were affected by the sudden requirement. The rule, set to be implemented from May 2025, is being challenged as unfair and harmful to judiciary aspirants.

The Court will examine arguments from fresh graduates and persons with benchmark disabilities who face difficulties meeting the practice requirement. Possible outcomes include complete removal of the rule or granting a “cooling-off period” to protect affected candidates.

Supreme Court's Review of the 3-Year Practice Rule

Here, we address a significant development concerning the mandatory 3-year practice rule for eligibility in judicial service examinations. The Supreme Court is reviewing this rule following a petition highlighting the challenges faced by aspiring judicial officers, particularly recent law graduates.

Supreme Court Update: 3-Year Practice Rule for Judiciary Exams

A significant update has emerged regarding the review petition filed against the mandatory 3-year practice rule for eligibility in judicial service examinations. The petition, heard on February 10th, raised several issues about the rule's impact on aspiring judicial officers. The primary arguments highlighted the hardship faced by recent law graduates whose sole career objective was to enter the judiciary. For these aspirants, the sudden imposition of a 3-year practice requirement was seen as a considerable setback.

Key Developments from the Supreme Court

The Honourable Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), has made two crucial decisions regarding this matter, offering significant relief for judiciary aspirants.

1. Review Petition Allowed: The application to file the review petition has been allowed. This means the Supreme Court has formally agreed to reconsider the matter. This is a critical initial step, indicating the court's willingness to re-examine the arguments against the 3-year practice rule. The case is scheduled for listing and filing from February 26th onwards.

2. Oral Hearings Permitted: The Court has also allowed the application for oral hearings in an open court. Initially, the review was limited to written submissions. Allowing oral arguments provides an opportunity for petitioners to present their case and evidence more effectively. They argue that the 3-year practice rule, set to be implemented from May 2025, is arbitrary and unjust to aspirants.

Issues Under Review

The review petition includes arguments from various groups of affected aspirants. The Supreme Court has tagged related petitions to be heard together.

Comparative Overview of Petitions:

• General Petition (heard Feb 10th):

• Challenges the 3-year practice rule as a whole.

• Argues its detrimental effect on fresh graduates who have been preparing exclusively for the judiciary.

• Sought an opportunity for oral arguments to present a detailed case against the rule.

• Proposed a "cooling-off period" as a potential remedy for recent graduates who had no other career plans.

• Petition by Persons with Benchmark Disabilities:

• This separate petition, now tagged with the main case, highlights the unique challenges faced by persons with disabilities in fulfilling the practice requirement.

• It questions whether they would be rendered ineligible for judicial examinations due to practical difficulties in engaging in legal practice.

SADHAN JUDICIARY FREE BATCH - Enroll Now

Potential Outcomes and Analysis

The allowance of the review petition and oral arguments opens up two primary possibilities regarding the 3-year practice rule:

1. Complete Revocation of the Rule: After hearing the oral arguments, the Supreme Court may decide to completely strike down the 3-year practice rule. This outcome would restore the previous eligibility criteria for all aspirants, effectively removing the mandatory practice requirement.

2. Granting a "Cooling-Off Period": Alternatively, the court might provide transitional relief or a "cooling-off period". This would likely exempt aspirants who have recently graduated or were already preparing for judiciary exams from the mandatory practice requirement. This would allow them to appear for the examinations without fulfilling the 3-year mandate. This is considered a strong possibility to protect the interests of those who had structured their career path around immediate entry into judicial services.