Supreme Court Seeks Input from High Courts and Law Schools on Bar Practice Eligibility for Differently-Abled Judicial Service Candidates
Case Overview: Bhumika Trust Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India recently took up a writ petition filed by a trust acting on behalf of hundreds of specially-abled candidates, challenging the mandatory requirement of three years' practice at the bar as a precondition for eligibility to appear in the competitive examination for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). The matter raises a significant constitutional and administrative question: whether a uniform eligibility condition should apply to all aspirants to judicial services, or whether specially-abled candidates deserve a separate dispensation.
Background and Context
Earlier Supreme Court Directions
The present proceedings must be understood in light of two significant prior judgments rendered by the Supreme Court itself:
Judgment dated 03.03.2025 — Passed in SUO Motu Writ Petition No. 2 of 2024 (In re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services), wherein the Court directed suitable amendments to the minimum eligibility conditions for appointment of judicial officers at the junior division level.
Judgment dated 20.05.2025 — Passed in I.A. No. 93974/2019 etc. (All India Judges Association and others v. Union of India and others), wherein the Court prescribed a mandatory condition of three years' practice at the bar as a prerequisite for eligibility to participate in the competitive examination for judicial appointments.
These two directions together form the backdrop against which the current petition by Bhumika Trust has been filed.
The Petitioner's Prayer
The petitioner, a registered trust representing a large number of specially-abled candidates aspiring to join the judiciary at the entry level, approached the Supreme Court with a specific prayer: that the three-year bar practice requirement be waived or dispensed with for candidates falling within the specially-abled category.
The trust argued that insisting on three years of prior legal practice as a mandatory eligibility criterion places a disproportionate and discriminatory burden on candidates with disabilities, who may already face structural and physical barriers in establishing a legal practice immediately after completing their law degree.
The Court's Prima Facie Observation
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioner, made a crucial prima facie observation:
"It prima facie seems that the eligibility condition must be uniform instead of being at variance for different categories of candidates who aspire to compete for judicial services."