{"id":350717,"date":"2025-06-16T16:30:58","date_gmt":"2025-06-16T11:00:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350717"},"modified":"2025-06-16T16:26:06","modified_gmt":"2025-06-16T10:56:06","slug":"review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/","title":{"rendered":"Review Petition filed in SC against mandatory 3-year legal practice for judicial service entry"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> A review petition has been filed against the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in All India Judges Assn.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184<\/a> requiring mandatory 3-year legal practice to be eligible for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment.<\/a><\/p>\n

A practicing advocate, enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and an aggrieved judicial service aspirant filed the review petition on the grounds that his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India stands infringed due to the imposition of an arbitrary and unreasonable condition of mandatory three years\u2019 practice at the Bar, as directed in the impugned judgment, thereby adversely affecting the petitioner\u2019s right to equal opportunity and fair access to public employment.<\/p>\n

The petitioner was particularly aggrieved by the Direction No. 7 of the impugned judgment-<\/p>\n

\u201cAll the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination. To fulfill the said requirement, the Rules shall mandate that the candidate produces a certificate to that effect duly certified either by the Principal Judicial Officer of that Court or by an advocate of that Court having a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer at such a station. Insofar as the candidates who are practicing before the High Courts or this Court, they shall be certified by an advocate who has a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by an officer designated by that High Court or this Court. We further direct that the experience of the candidates which they have gained while working as Law Clerks with any of the Judges or Judicial Officers in the country should also be considered while calculating their total number of years of practice. The Rules shall also mandate that the candidates who are appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to their selection through the examination must compulsorily undergo at least 1 year of training before presiding in a Court.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was submitted that the mandatory 3-year legal practice rule should be implemented only from 2027 onwards to avoid unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023\u20142025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria. Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It was submitted that the mandatory three-year practice rule should be implemented only from 2027 onwards to avoid unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023—2025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":350726,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1188,2],"tags":[83558,83561,83560,5363,83559],"class_list":["post-350717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot_off_the_press","category-news","tag-3-year-practice-requirement-for-judicial-service","tag-legal-practice-eligibility-for-judges","tag-review-petition-against-3-years-practice","tag-supreme-court","tag-supreme-court-judicial-entry-mandate"],"yoast_head":"\nMandatory 3-year legal practice rule: Review Petition Filed | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Review petition challenges the Supreme Court\u2019s mandate requiring 3 years of legal practice to qualify for judicial service\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Review Petition filed in SC against mandatory 3-year legal practice for judicial service entry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Review petition challenges the Supreme Court\u2019s mandate requiring 3 years of legal practice to qualify for judicial service\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-16T11:00:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"594\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Review Petition filed in SC against mandatory 3-year legal practice for judicial service entry\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/\",\"name\":\"Mandatory 3-year legal practice rule: Review Petition Filed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-16T11:00:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"Review petition challenges the Supreme Court\u2019s mandate requiring 3 years of legal practice to qualify for judicial service\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":594,\"caption\":\"mandatory 3-year legal practice\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Review Petition filed in SC against mandatory 3-year legal practice for judicial service entry\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mandatory 3-year legal practice rule: Review Petition Filed | SCC Times","description":"Review petition challenges the Supreme Court\u2019s mandate requiring 3 years of legal practice to qualify for judicial service","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Review Petition filed in SC against mandatory 3-year legal practice for judicial service entry","og_description":"Review petition challenges the Supreme Court\u2019s mandate requiring 3 years of legal practice to qualify for judicial service","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-16T11:00:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":594,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Review Petition filed in SC against mandatory 3-year legal practice for judicial service entry","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/","name":"Mandatory 3-year legal practice rule: Review Petition Filed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-16T11:00:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"Review petition challenges the Supreme Court\u2019s mandate requiring 3 years of legal practice to qualify for judicial service","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.webp","width":886,"height":594,"caption":"mandatory 3-year legal practice"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/16\/review-petition-filed-against-supreme-court-3-year-practice-for-judicial-services\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Review Petition filed in SC against mandatory 3-year legal practice for judicial service entry"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mandatory-3-year-legal-practice.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":225364,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/10\/sabarimala-questions-of-law-can-be-referred-to-larger-bench-while-hearing-a-review-petition\/","url_meta":{"origin":350717,"position":0},"title":"Sabarimala| Questions of law can be referred to larger bench while hearing a review petition; Issues framed","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 9-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ, hearing the Sabarimala reference has held that the Supreme Court can refer questions of law to a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292296,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/16\/sc-issues-notice-in-plea-filed-by-mohammed-shamis-wife-seeking-uniform-laws-for-divorce-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350717,"position":1},"title":"Supreme Court issues notice in plea filed by Mohammed Shami’s wife seeking Uniform Laws for Divorce","author":"Editor","date":"May 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Mohammed Shami's wife Hasin Jahan filed plea before the Court to declare certain provisions of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 as unconstitutional.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"uniform laws for divorce","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/uniform-laws-for-divorce.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/uniform-laws-for-divorce.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/uniform-laws-for-divorce.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/uniform-laws-for-divorce.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253803,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/07\/advocate-trying-to-stall-elevation-of-judicial-officer-as-judge-of-telangana-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":350717,"position":2},"title":"Advocate trying to stall elevation of judicial officer as Judge of Telangana HC: Supreme Court terms writ petition ‘gross abuse of process of law’, imposes 5 lakh as costs","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate seeking to stall elevation of a judicial officer as a Judge of the Telangana High Court. The Supreme Court said that the petition was a gross abuse of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289727,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/15\/supreme-court-collegium-recommends-elevation-of-three-judicial-officers-from-the-delhi-higher-judiciary-to-the-delhi-high-court-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":350717,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court Collegium recommends elevation of three Judicial Officers from the Delhi Higher Judiciary to the Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"April 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court Collegium Resolution was passed dated 12-04-2023.","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court collegium","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/supreme-court-collegium.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/supreme-court-collegium.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/supreme-court-collegium.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/supreme-court-collegium.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/06\/sabarimala-9-judge-bench-reserves-order-on-whether-a-reference-can-be-made-in-a-review-petition\/","url_meta":{"origin":350717,"position":4},"title":"Sabarimala| 9-judge bench reserves order on whether a reference can be made in a review petition","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 9-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ, hearing the Sabarimala reference has reserved it's order on the legal issue of whether the Supreme Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287077,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/16\/eknath-shinde-v-uddhav-thackeray-sc-constitution-bench-reserves-judgment-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":350717,"position":5},"title":"Eknath Shinde v Uddhav Thackeray | Supreme Court Constitution bench reserves judgment","author":"Editor","date":"March 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court reserves judgement in the Maharashtra political crises after hearing rigorous, head-strong arguments from both the Shiv Sena factions for more than a month.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Eknath Shinde v Uddhav Thackeray","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-757.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-757.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-757.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-757.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=350717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350717\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/350726"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}