Supreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services

New Delhi | Lentis Legalis

The Supreme Court of India is set to consider a Review Petition filed by Advocate Chandrasen Yadav, through Advocate-on-Record Kunal Yadav, challenging the mandatory requirement of three years’ legal practice for entry into judicial services, as introduced in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1553).

As per the Supreme Court’s case status portal, the Review Petition titled Chandrasen Yadav v. Union of India (Diary No. 33086/2025) has been listed for motion hearing (fresh for admission) on 10 February 2026.

Bench Composition

The matter is listed before a Bench comprising:

• Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih, and
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The petition will be taken up at the threshold stage to determine whether it merits admission.

Background of the Case

In its 2024 Constitution Bench judgment, the Supreme Court mandated a minimum of three years’ advocacy practice as an eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The ruling marked a significant departure from the earlier position that permitted fresh law graduates to compete in judicial service examinations.

The decision has had wide-ranging implications for thousands of law graduates across the country who were preparing for judicial service examinations under the previous eligibility framework.

Key Grounds Raised in the Review Petition

The Review Petition contends that:

• The mandatory three-year practice requirement causes manifest injustice to law graduates who had a legitimate expectation based on earlier recruitment rules.
• The condition operates retrospectively, adversely affecting candidates already in the pipeline.
• The judgment overlooks federal variations in State judicial service rules.
• The requirement lacks sufficient empirical data demonstrating its necessity for judicial competence.

Interlocutory Applications Filed

Along with the Review Petition, multiple applications have been filed, including:

• Application seeking permission to file the review petition,
• Application requesting oral hearing,
• Stay application, and
• Application to place additional documents and materials on record.

At the motion hearing stage, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Review Petition discloses an error apparent on the face of the record or presents exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Constitution Bench verdict. Review petitions are ordinarily decided by circulation, and oral hearing is granted only in rare cases.

The outcome of the proceedings is expected to have a significant bearing on the future of judicial service aspirants across India.