The Supreme Court is set to pronounce judgment on review petitions challenging its earlier ruling that mandated three years of legal practice as an eligibility condition for direct recruitment into the subordinate judiciary. The original judgment had departed from the position that fresh law graduates could directly appear for judicial service examinations. The review petitions argue the rule restricts access and conflicts with High Court recruitment rules. The verdict will directly affect thousands of law graduates aspiring to judicial service nationwide.

The controversy centres on the eligibility criteria for entry into the subordinate judiciary through the Provincial Civil Service (Judicial) or State Judicial Service examinations conducted by High Courts and State Public Service Commissions.

The Supreme Court, exercising its power under Article 235 read with Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, supervises the subordinate judiciary. In All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (multiple rounds of litigation since 1992), the Court has repeatedly issued directions on service conditions, pay, and recruitment standards for district and subordinate court judges.

The original judgment under review held that candidates must have three years of active legal practice before becoming eligible for judicial service exams at the entry level (Civil Judge Junior Division / Judicial Magistrate). This reversed the position in several states where fresh graduates from recognised law colleges could directly apply.

The constitutional tension: Article 14 (equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession) are engaged. Petitioners argue the rule creates an unreasonable restriction on fresh graduates' right to enter judicial service, while the state argues judicial competence demands demonstrated courtroom experience.

The test the Court applies is proportionality — whether the restriction bears a rational nexus to the legitimate aim of ensuring competent judges. Review jurisdiction under Article 137 allows the Court to correct an apparent error on the face of the record.

For CLAT PG aspirants, this event sits at the intersection of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 233–235, and the Court's supervisory power over the subordinate judiciary — all high-frequency testing areas.