Challenge to SC’s 3-Year Practice Rule: Colin Gonsalves Files Review Petition

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves has approached the Supreme Court with a review petition challenging its recent judgement mandating a minimum of three years of legal practice to qualify for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). The review petition comes in response to the top court’s May 20 verdict in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India, which directed all High Courts and State governments to amend their service rules accordingly.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, had ruled that practical courtroom experience is essential for judicial candidates, but exempted ongoing recruitment processes that began prior to the judgement.

Filed through Advocate Satya Mitra, the review petition challenges the ruling on seventeen distinct grounds. It argues that the Court ignored five Law Commission reports (1924–1986), all of which rejected mandatory Bar experience as a prerequisite for joining the judiciary. The petition also references the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report (2022), which recommended a broader consultative process before introducing such eligibility conditions.

A significant portion of the petition critiques the decision’s failure to consider the robust judicial training infrastructure in place since 2002. State Judicial Academies currently provide one-year residential training, courtroom simulations, and local law exposure, which the petitioners say sufficiently prepare new recruits for judicial duties without requiring prior Bar experience.

Concerns of procedural fairness have also been raised. The petition alleges that affidavits collected from High Courts were not shared with aspirants, denying them a fair chance to respond to the basis of the rule change.

Additionally, the review plea contends that the mandatory three-year practice rule disproportionately affects women—especially those who may delay or abandon legal careers due to societal expectations of early marriage—as well as candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Economically Weaker Sections, and the LGBTQ+ community. It points to the lack of mentorship and inclusive infrastructure in the legal profession, which impedes equitable access to courtroom experience.

Sharp criticism has also been directed at the Bar Council of India (BCI). The petition accuses the BCI of regulatory failure, citing issues like exorbitant enrolment fees, the proliferation of unregulated law colleges, and delays in issuing licences. The petition claims that these systemic lapses have worsened the crisis facing first-generation and underprivileged aspirants, and the BCI’s silence during litigation is particularly troubling.

To address these concerns, the review petition seeks:

• A stay on the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgement.
• Implementation of the three-year rule only from the 2026 recruitment cycle.
• Relaxation of upper age limits for candidates affected by the sudden enforcement.
• Constitution of an expert body to study the rule’s broader implications.
• Reforms in BCI’s enrolment processes and law college recognition standards.

Earlier this month, a similar petition was filed by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, who argued that the ruling violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment.

The Supreme Court’s judgement has sparked debate across legal circles, with critics warning that the rule may dissuade women and underprivileged law graduates from pursuing judicial careers at an early stage, thereby deepening inequalities in the judiciary.