Challenging the 3-Year Mandatory Practice Rule for Judiciary

When the Supreme Court mandated three years of practice for judiciary entry, I saw many bright minds suddenly barred from their goals. I filed this review petition because merit should not be sidelined by administrative hurdles. My arguments focus on the lack of empirical evidence supporting this rule and the immediate, adverse impact it has on the 2023-2025 batches who prepared under the previous criteria.

Why I Fought This Rule

I believe the law must evolve to stay fair. The recent mandate for a three-year practice period for judicial aspirants was, in my view, an arbitrary barrier. It ignored the reality of law students who spent years preparing for competitive exams based on long-standing eligibility criteria. By filing this review petition as an Advocate on Record, I am challenging the logic that equates 'years of practice' with 'legal competence.'

The Legal Argument

My petition argues several critical points:

• Lack of Empirical Basis: The judgment lacks data proving that fresh graduates underperform as judges.
• Arbitrary Exclusion: A blanket disqualification infringes on the right to choose a profession under the Constitution.
• Prospective Implementation: At the very least, such rules should be implemented prospectively (e.g., from 2027 onwards) to prevent the sudden, unfair exclusion of aspirants currently in the pipeline.

My Role as Your Advocate

I don’t just file paperwork; I push for results. Whether I am handling a review petition at the Supreme Court or managing complex criminal litigation, my approach remains the same: I trust my gut, I rely on the law, and I do not back down from a fight. If you are facing a legal challenge or need representation that values conviction over convenience, let us discuss how to build your case.