The Supreme Court chose not to modify its earlier verdict that mandates a minimum of three years of law practice for law graduates to appear in entry-level judicial services examinations. The court said any modification could open a “Pandora’s box,” signaling its firm stance on maintaining uniform eligibility standards across the country.
The matter arose from a plea filed by a judge from Madhya Pradesh, who sought reconsideration of the May 20 ruling.
The petitioner requested that serving judicial officers be allowed to appear in judicial services examinations, taking into account their experience as judges.
The original verdict, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, barred fresh law graduates from appearing in entry-level judicial services exams.
It specified that a law graduate must practice law for at least three years before being eligible. The court, however, clarified that the experience gained during legal internships could be counted toward the three-year requirement.
The recent plea argued that sitting judicial officers, by virtue of their work in courts, have practical experience equivalent to practising lawyers and should therefore be eligible for the exams in other states.
On Thursday, the bench, comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, rejected the plea.
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ELIGIBILITY, BARS SERVING JUDGES FROM APPEARING
The bench emphasised that allowing serving judges to take the exams would disrupt the uniformity of eligibility and potentially create administrative and legal complications. “What is wrong in Madhya Pradesh? we will not modify this. This will open Pandora’s box,” the Chief Justice said while dismissing the petition.
The Supreme Court’s decision has reinforced the principle that judicial services examinations are meant for those who have spent a minimum period in legal practice.
The verdict aims to maintain a clear distinction between law graduates entering the judiciary through practice and those already serving in the judicial system.
Legal experts have noted that the ruling will standardise entry requirements across states, preventing ad hoc eligibility modifications.
At the same time, it limits avenues for judicial officers seeking transfers or appearing in exams outside their current postings.
With this judgment, law graduates seeking entry into judicial services now have a definitive guideline: three years of active legal practice is a non-negotiable prerequisite.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of uniform eligibility standards for the judicial recruitment process and avoids exceptions that could lead to inconsistent interpretations in different states
