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.

Lentis Legalis
New Delhi | 9 February 2026

In a significant ruling clarifying the law on anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court of India held that once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily cannot be restricted till the filing of the charge sheet, unless exceptional circumstances are recorded. The Court set aside an order of the High Court of Allahabad which had denied continued protection to an accused after completion of investigation.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1536 of 2026, titled Sumit v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

The appellant, Sumit, is the brother-in-law (devar) of a deceased woman who had been married to the appellant’s brother for about seven months prior to her death.

• The deceased died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home.
• An FIR bearing No. 560/2024 was registered at Akbarpur Police Station, Kanpur Dehat, under:
  • Sections 80(2) / 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
  • Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
• The FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased, alleging dowry-related harassment and death.

Apprehending arrest, the appellant initially approached the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Proceedings Before the High Court

First Anticipatory Bail Order

In Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3992/2025, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. However, the relief was restricted only till the filing of the police charge sheet.

The High Court:

• Accepted that there were no specific allegations against the appellant.
• Noted that he was implicated largely due to his relationship as a brother-in-law.
• Observed that he had no criminal antecedents.
• Still imposed a time-bound limitation, terminating protection once the investigation concluded.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application

After the charge sheet was filed, the appellant again sought anticipatory bail. This time, the High Court rejected the application without identifying any new aggravating circumstance or change in the factual matrix.

This rejection led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether anticipatory bail can be restricted till the filing of the charge sheet as a matter of routine?
2. Whether filing of a charge sheet automatically extinguishes the protection of anticipatory bail?
3. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the second anticipatory bail application without recording special reasons?

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Discussion

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the practice of granting time-bound anticipatory bail orders.

No Rationale for Automatic Expiry

The Bench observed:

• Once a court, after considering the nature of allegations, role of the accused, and overall facts, exercises discretion in favour of the accused, there must be strong and special reasons to subsequently deny protection.
• Merely because the charge sheet is filed, the anticipatory bail does not automatically lapse.

The Court questioned the logic behind such restrictions, noting:

“Either the Court grants anticipatory bail or declines it. Having granted it after due consideration, there was no justification to limit it till the filing of the charge sheet.”

Reliance on Constitution Bench Precedent

The Bench reaffirmed the law laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), holding that:

• Anticipatory bail need not have a fixed expiry period.
• Duration of bail is a matter of judicial discretion, not procedural milestones.
• Arbitrary timelines undermine personal liberty.

The Court also relied upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, reiterating that:

• Anticipatory bail should not hinge upon investigation stages like filing of charge sheet or taking cognizance.

Conditions, Not Time Limits, Are the Safeguard

Addressing concerns of misuse, the Court clarified that:

• Risks can be mitigated through conditions of cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering of evidence.
• If circumstances change, the prosecution is always at liberty to seek cancellation or modification of bail under law.
• However, expiry clauses at inception are legally unsustainable.

Clarification on Addition of Graver Offences

Before concluding, the Court addressed an important legal scenario:
What happens if new, serious non-bailable offences are added after bail is granted?

Relying on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi (2001), the Court held:

• Addition of graver cognizable and non-bailable offences may disentitle the accused from earlier bail.
• In such cases:
  • Courts must apply their mind afresh.
  • Investigating agencies may seek custody through appropriate judicial orders.
  • Arrest cannot be mechanical and must follow judicial authorization.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:

• Set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court rejecting anticipatory bail.
• Directed that In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer. The appellant shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court and furnish fresh bail bonds. Directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for placement before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

Click Below to read the Judgment
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/3119/3119_2026_5_32_68496_Judgement_09-Feb-2026.pdf

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.