Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Requirement Of 3 Years Law Practice Or 70% Marks In LL.B For MP Civil Judge Post

The Supreme Court (today, April 26) declined to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order upholding the rule that stipulated eligibility of at least three years of practice or 70 percent marks in law graduation for entry-level judicial service candidates in the State.

Supreme Court Upholds Eligibility Rules for MP Judicial Service

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed petitions challenging the rules prescribing an eligibility of at least three years practice or 70 per cent marks in law graduation for entry-level judicial service candidates in Madhya Pradesh. [Garima Khare v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and anr]

A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra upheld a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in this regard.

Justice Roy Highlights Importance of Experience in Judicial Service Eligibility

"We are not going to entertain this. It took some years of learning and experience, which is why these rules were framed. This is to ensure better judicial candidates. Their (fresh law graduates) future is not doomed," Justice Roy remarked during the course of the hearing.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had on April 1 upheld the rule in question, leading to the instant appeal before the apex court.

The High Court had reasoned the intent of the rule was quality-centric, so as to ensure that the best among the best are selected as judges. Further, the interest of litigants who approch courts for justice was far more important than the interest of individuals. 

The High Court had lamented that the standards for the judiciary have remained stagnant for decades without any improvement, while in all other professions, the standards have gone up.

It had rejected the argument that the requirement was in violation of the right to equality before the law.

The batch of petitions before it had challenged the amendment to the Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which was notified last year. 

Supreme Court Affirms High Court Ruling Without Intervention

The Supreme Court's decision today essentially means that it sees no grounds to overturn or intervene in the ruling made by the High Court. By ordering this, the Supreme Court is affirming the decision made at the lower court level without making any changes to it.

"Though learned counsel have advanced arguments at some length, we see no reason to interfere with the High Court's view. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed."

Case Title: GARIMA KHARE vs. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH., Diary No.- 18316 - 2024