Rare Open Door: Supreme Court Greenlights Public Hearing for Challenge to 3-Year Judge Rule

In a departure from convention, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant , alongside Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran , has allowed review petitions challenging the court's own May 2025 judgment— which reinstated a mandatory three-year litigation practice requirement for aspiring civil judges— to be heard in open court . This procedural nod, ordered on February 10, 2026 , sets the stage for oral arguments on February 26, with notices issued to states and high courts.

The Rule That Sparked a Firestorm

The saga traces back to 1989 's Writ Petition (C) No. 1022, but gained steam last May when the Supreme Court revived a pre- 2002 rule: candidates for Civil Judge (Junior Division) must clock at least three years as practicing advocates. The court emphasized courtroom experience for "competence and maturity" at the trial level. Petitioner Chandrasen Yadav , a practicing advocate, swiftly filed for review (Diary No. 33086/2025) in June 2025 , arguing the decision overlooked key evidence and encroached on policy turf.

Interlinked applications, including those for permission to file review, additional documents, stay, and open court listing, were bundled with related matters like IA Nos. in WP(C) 1022/ 1989 and tagged to Writ Petition (C) 1110/2025 by Bhumika Trust .

Petitioner's Volley: Equity Over Anecdotes

Yadav's challenge is multifaceted. He contends the court ignored the Shetty Commission 's push to scrap the practice bar, given modern law curricula's court visits and internships, plus pre-service training. No data backs claims of poor performance by fresh graduates, he argues—just "subjective, anecdotal perceptions."

The rule allegedly discriminates: it sidelines law firm, PSU, or corporate lawyers despite their expertise, hits SC/ST/OBC aspirants from weaker sections hardest by delaying entry, and violates Article 19(1)(g) 's right to practice any profession. States like Nagaland, Tripura, Chhattisgarh, and Punjab & Haryana High Court opposed it, yet their views were sidelined, Yadav claims. Imposing a uniform rule sans legislation oversteps Article 141 , turning judges into policymakers.

Bench Breaks Chambers Tradition

Review petitions typically unfold in chambers , sans oral arguments . But the bench invoked exceptional circumstances, per the February 10 order circulated among them:

"1. The application for permission to file the Review Petition(s) is allowed.
2. The applications for listing the Review Petition(s) in open Court /oral hearing are also allowed.
3. Issue notice, returnable on 26.02.2026 .
4. Tag with Writ Petition (C) 1110/2025 - Bhumika Trust ."

This opens the floor for live debates, potentially swaying the merits review.

Echoes of Precedent and Broader Ripples

While the order cites no precedents, the underlying dispute invokes the Shetty Commission 's 2002 relaxation and 1989 origins. The original ruling leaned on high court and state affidavits favoring experience; now, opponents get their say publicly.

What Happens Next? A Bench in Waiting

Merits remain untested—the order is purely procedural. Success could scrap the three-year hurdle, easing access for thousands of graduates and reshaping recruitment. Failure cements it, prioritizing litigators over diverse legal talent. As notices fly to respondents like the Union of India , February 26 looms large for India's judicial pipeline.

Key Observations from the Bench

- "The application for permission to file the Review Petition(s) is allowed." – Clearing the review path.

- "The applications for listing the Review Petition(s) in open Court /oral hearing are also allowed."

– Exceptional public access granted. - "Issue notice, returnable on 26.02.2026 ."

– Timeline set for showdown.

This ruling underscores the court's flexibility, even on its own calls, amid cries for data-driven justice over blanket bars.