Supreme Court Review Petition Challenges 3-Year Mandatory Practice for Judicial Services: What Law Students Must Know

Public debate continues to grip the nation’s attention among newly admitted lawyers and law students regarding the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision of May 20, 2025, in I.A. No. 93974/2019, along with I.A. Nos. 72900/2021, 73015/2021, 40695/2021, I.A. No. 50269/2022, and I.A. No. 201893/2022. By this decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made a minimum of three years’ experience as a practicing lawyer a mandatory eligibility condition for appointment to the entry-level Judicial Service (Civil Judge Junior Division).

This decision has caused great concern among those preparing for the judicial service, especially fresh law graduates and newly registered lawyers, who now face a long and uncertain path to reach the judiciary.

The requirement of three years’ prior practice places aspiring candidates in an exceptionally difficult position, particularly when viewed against the ground realities of the Indian legal profession. Meaningful courtroom exposure is often hard to obtain, a challenge that is disproportionately severe for women students, persons with disabilities, and first-generation lawyers who lack familial backing, professional networks, or institutional guidance. For many first-generation aspirants, even securing a basic internship proves arduous in the absence of personal connections, making the acquisition of practical skills and professional confidence an uphill task.

The situation is further compounded by entrenched hierarchies within legal education itself. Graduates from National Law Universities are frequently perceived as belonging to an elite category, while students from other universities, despite comparable merit are often overlooked, resulting in unequal access to quality internships and chambers offering substantive work. This systemic disparity deepens existing inequalities within the profession. Moreover, the financial realities of legal training remain stark: stipends during internships or traineeships are either negligible or entirely absent, and earnings in the initial years of practice are generally insufficient to sustain a dignified livelihood.

As a result, a significant number of young aspirants are forced into a prolonged period of professional and economic uncertainty. This raises serious concerns regarding equal access to judicial service, social inclusiveness, and the future composition of the subordinate judiciary, which risks becoming less representative of India’s diverse social realities. The mandate, though aimed at enhancing judicial competence, thus calls for a deeper examination of whether it inadvertently erects structural barriers incompatible with the constitutional promise of equality and fairness in public employment.

Review Petition filed by a young advocate, Chandrasen Yadav, who himself had been preparing for the judicial services, titled Chandrasen Yadav v. Union of India & Others, challenges the judgment dated 20 May 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which mandates a minimum of three years’ prior practice as an advocate for appointment to the lower judiciary. The Review Petition was instituted on 16 June 2025 and was listed on 10 February 2026. The decision on the petition is presently awaited. In the absence of any immediate public update, a sense of anxiety and uncertainty has emerged among law students and newly enrolled advocates who are closely following the outcome of the matter.

It is important to note that a Review Petition is procedurally distinct from a writ petition or a Special Leave Petition. Review matters are ordinarily decided by circulation in the chambers of the Hon’ble Judges, without oral hearings, and the process often takes time. The absence of an instant order on the listing date does not indicate delay or adverse inference; rather, it reflects the established judicial practice governing review jurisdiction. The final order is issued only after due consideration by the Bench, following which it is uploaded on the official website of the Supreme Court.

A Review Petition serves as an important constitutional and procedural safeguard, enabling the Supreme Court of India to reconsider its own judgments in exceptional circumstances. While the finality of judgments remains a fundamental principle of judicial discipline and legal certainty, the power of review exists to prevent a miscarriage of justice arising from errors apparent on the face of the record. At the same time, the Court’s review jurisdiction is deliberately narrow, exercised with great caution, and invoked only in the rarest of cases, so as to strike a careful balance between correcting palpable errors and preserving the stability of judicial decisions.

The power of review exercised by the Supreme Court of India emanates from distinct constitutional and procedural sources. Article 137 of the Constitution of India expressly empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment or order passed by it, subject to the provisions of Article 145, which authorises the Court to frame rules regulating its practice and procedure, as well as any law enacted by Parliament.

In furtherance of this constitutional mandate, Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 governs the procedure for the institution and consideration of review petitions. The review jurisdiction is clearly distinguishable from the Court’s appellate jurisdiction and cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal or a rehearing of the case on merits.

Under Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review petition is ordinarily required to be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. Such a petition is placed, as far as practicable, before the same Bench of Hon’ble Judges that delivered the original decision. This procedural framework underscores the limited and exceptional nature of the review power, which is designed not to reopen concluded issues, but to correct manifest errors in the interest of justice.

Review petitions before the Supreme Court are ordinarily considered in chambers by the same Bench of Hon’ble Judges that delivered the original judgment. At this stage, no oral hearing is granted, and the matter is decided solely on the basis of the pleadings and the record. This in-chamber circulation mechanism is intended to uphold judicial efficiency, discipline, and the finality of judgments, while allowing limited scope for correction of manifest errors.

In a review petition, the Supreme Court typically decides the case by reading the papers in chambers, and in most cases, the petition is dismissed by a short order without detailed reasons. Only in rare and exceptional circumstances, when there is a clear and serious error or potential for injustice—does the Court grant review, issue notice, or list the matter for hearing in open court. There is no fixed time limit for deciding a review petition; sometimes it is decided the same day it is listed, and sometimes it can take weeks, and the order is uploaded with some delay. For law students and young lawyers, it is important to remain calm and patient, as a delay in uploading the order does not mean that the review has been accepted or that something unusual has occurred, it is simply part of the normal process followed by the Supreme Court.