New Delhi | February 18, 2026
LENTIS LEGALIS BREAKING

The Supreme Court of India has allowed applications seeking permission to file Review Petition(s) in a long-pending matter arising out of Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989. Importantly, applications requesting that the Review Petition be listed in open court with oral hearing have also been allowed, recognizing the significance of the issues involved. The review petition has been filed by Advocate Chandrasen Yadav, through Advocate-on-Record Kunal Yadav.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising The Chief Justice of India, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The Court has issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 26 February 2026, directing them to respond to the Review Petition. The Review Petition has also been tagged with Writ Petition (C) No. 1110 of 2025 (Diary No. 52914 of 2025 – Bhumika Trust) to ensure comprehensive and consistent adjudication of connected issues.

In the Writ Petition (C) No. 1110 of 2025 (Diary No. 52914 of 2025 – Bhumika Trust vs. Union of India), the Supreme Court of India has already invited suggestions from law universities across the country on the issue of mandatory three-year legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into judicial service. With the Review Petitions now permitted and ordered to be heard in open court, the forthcoming hearing will address the wider constitutional, institutional, and practical issues raised both in the Review Petitions and in the writ petition filed by Bhumika Trust, enabling a comprehensive reconsideration of the policy’s impact on law students, judicial recruitment, and access to justice.

The Review Petition assails the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20 May 2025 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989, challenging the direction mandating three years’ minimum practice at the Bar for entry into the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre. The petitioner, Chandrasen Yadav argues that the decision is unsupported by empirical data, impact studies, or objective evaluation, and rests largely on subjective opinions of certain High Courts while ignoring dissenting views of several States and High Courts. It is contended that no credible evidence establishes that fresh law graduates perform poorly as judges or that prior advocacy experience necessarily enhances judicial competence, particularly when rigorous competitive examinations and structured judicial training exist. The petition further highlights that the judgment selectively overlooks key recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, earlier binding precedent in All India Judges Association (1993), and the role of institutional training as an alternative to mandatory practice. The uniform, nationwide imposition of the rule is alleged to be arbitrary, exclusionary, and disproportionate, adversely impacting economically weaker sections, SC/ST/OBC candidates, recent graduates, and those working in law firms, PSUs, or corporate roles. It is also argued that the absence of a transitional mechanism, the impractical certificate requirement, and the coercive nature of forcing graduates into litigation practice infringe Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner asserts that by effectively prescribing eligibility norms without legislative backing or inclusive consultation, the ruling raises serious constitutional concerns regarding arbitrariness, equal opportunity, and access to judicial service, warranting reconsideration by the Supreme Court of India.

The matter is now scheduled for further proceedings upon return of notice on 26.02.2026.

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( hereinafter called as BNSS), which is India’s new criminal procedure code replacing the old CrPC, the term “investigation” has a specific legal meaning and scope. The very term Investigation is defined in Section – 2(1)(L) of the BNSS as:

“Investigation includes all the proceedings under this Sanhita for the collection of evidence conducted by the police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi [(1955) 1 SCR 1150, 1157-58] has described, the procedure, for investigation as follows:

The investigation consists of generally the following steps-

(1)Proceeding to the spot,
(2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case,
(3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,
(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of  –

(a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit,

(b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and

 (5) formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173 CRPC (Now Section – 193 BNSS).

An investigation by a police officer generally begins with the recording of information regarding an offence which generally called as F.I.R. Investigation, in substance, means collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence. The Investigating Officer is, for this purpose, entitled to question persons who, in his opinion, are able to throw light on the offence which has been committed and is likewise entitled to question the suspect and is entitled to reduce the statements of persons questioned by him to writing. He is also entitled to search the place of the offence and to search other places with the object of seizing articles connected with the offence.

It is a process which is primarily aimed at the ascertainment of facts and circumstances surrounding an alleged crime and involves the police officer proceeding to the spot of occurrence to collect evidence and ends with the formation of an opinion as to whether, on the basis of the material collected, there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and, if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by filing a charge-sheet.

This Section– 2(1)(L) of the BNSS defining the Investigation also provides an Explanation given as below-

“Where any of the provisions of a special Act are inconsistent with the provisions of this Sanhita, the provisions of the special Act shall prevail.”

This Explanation underscores the application of the well-established doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant, which signifies that a special law prevails over a general law. The underlying rationale of this Explanation is rooted in the legislative presumption that, when Parliament enacts a special statute to govern a particular subject-matter or situation, it does so with focused and deliberate intent. Such a special enactment is therefore intended to operate as a self-contained and exhaustive code within its specific field, and its provisions are not to be diluted or overridden by the more general framework of the Sanhita.

Advocate Chandrasen Yadav
Allahabad High Court
B.Sc & LL.B from Allahabad University
LL.M from Central University Of Punjab
Lucknow

Lentis Legalis
New Delhi | February 3, 2026

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the appointment of five retired judges as ad hoc judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a period of two years, invoking Article 224A of the Constitution of India.

The decision was taken in the Collegium meeting held on 3rd February, 2026, and was communicated through a resolution titled “Statement dated 3rd February reg. appointment of ad hoc Judges in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”

As per the Collegium resolution, the following retired judges have been approved for appointment as ad hoc judges:

1. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
2. Justice Mohd. Aslam
3. Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
4. Justice Renu Agarwal
5. Justice Jyotsna Sharma

These appointments are to be made in terms of Article 224A of the Constitution, subject to the consent of the appointees and approval of the President of India.

Article 224A of the Constitution of India empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the prior consent of the President, to request a retired judge of that or any other High Court to sit and act as a judge of the High Court.

While such ad hoc judges enjoy the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as regular judges, they are not deemed to be permanent judges of the High Court. Their allowances are determined by a Presidential order, and their appointment is contingent upon their consent.

The provision gained renewed significance following the Supreme Court’s directions in April 2021, issued to address the unprecedented backlog of cases pending before High Courts across the country.

In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court invoked Article 224A and laid down guidelines for appointing ad hoc judges, emphasizing that such appointments should ordinarily be made after genuine efforts to fill regular judicial vacancies.

The Court permitted the use of Article 224A where:

• Vacancies exceeded 20% of sanctioned strength
• Certain categories of cases were pending for over five years
• More than 10% of total pending cases were older than five years
• The disposal rate was lower than the rate of fresh filings

In a later development, the Supreme Court relaxed several conditions imposed in its 2021 ruling, acknowledging the gravity of pendency, particularly in criminal cases.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant ruled that:

• Chief Justices of High Courts may recommend retired judges for ad hoc appointments
• Each High Court may appoint 2 to 5 ad hoc judges, subject to a ceiling of 10% of the sanctioned strength
• Ad hoc judges shall hear criminal appeals, sitting in benches headed by a serving High Court judge

The Supreme Court also kept in abeyance certain restrictive conditions laid down earlier, including:

• The requirement that vacancies must exceed 20% before ad hoc appointments
• The restriction preventing ad hoc judges from sitting on regular benches

The Court declined to prescribe a fixed timeline for appointments but stressed that the process should begin without delay.

The ruling was prompted by alarming pendency figures, with over 60 lakh cases pending in High Courts nationwide, including nearly 20 lakh criminal appeals.

T