Supreme Court Locks Judicial Exam Rules Tight
SC rejects plea to ease judicial exam criteria.
The Supreme Court on Thursday firmly declined to amend its earlier ruling mandating a minimum of three years of law practice for graduates to qualify for entry-level judicial services examinations, warning that any change would “open Pandora’s box.” The decision came in response to a plea from a Madhya Pradesh judicial officer seeking to include judicial service experience as a qualifying criterion for appearing in exams across other states.
On May 20, a bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai had set a precedent by barring fresh law graduates from taking the judicial services exam, stipulating that candidates must have three years of legal practice. The court also allowed experience as law interns to count toward this requirement but explicitly excluded judicial service experience from eligibility considerations.
During Thursday’s hearing, the bench, comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, rejected the plea for modification, emphasizing the need for consistency in eligibility criteria. “What is wrong in Madhya Pradesh? … we will not modify this. This will open Pandora’s box,” the Chief Justice remarked, highlighting concerns that relaxing the rules could lead to a flood of similar requests, undermining the standardized framework for judicial exams.
Also Read: Supreme Court Grills Election Commission Over Bihar Voter List Secrecy
The ruling reinforces the court’s commitment to ensuring that only experienced legal practitioners enter the judiciary, aiming to enhance the quality and preparedness of judicial officers. This decision is likely to spark debates among aspiring judges and legal professionals seeking flexibility in career mobility across state judicial services.
Also Read: SC Probes Detention of Bengali-Speaking Migrant Workers
