|
A review petition has been filed before the Supreme Court against its recent judgment mandating three years of practice as a lawyer for the entry posts in judicial service (post of Civil Judge-Junior Division).
The review petition was filed against the judgment delivered by a bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran on May 20. The top court had also ordered that the requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the High Court had already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of the judgment. Advocate Kunal Yadav filed the review petition stating that fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 stand infringed due to the imposition of the condition. He has urged the court to implement the mandatory three-year practice rule only from 2027 to avoid the unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023-2025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria. The plea said that the judgment suffered from apparent errors on the record, warranting a review. It said that direction mandating a minimum of three years of legal practice disproportionately impacts aspirants from economically weaker sections and socially disadvantaged communities, particularly Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC). There was no comprehensive data placed before the court to establish that fresh law graduates or candidates without three years of Bar experience are underperforming in judicial roles, said the review petition. (ANI)
|
