INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court ruled today, May 20, that applicants seeking entry-level judicial service positions must have at least three years of experience as advocates.
The necessity of this condition will be evaluated in this piece of writing. It will investigate the ratio supporting the Supreme Court’s mandate. Additionally, it will examine the professional pathways that students must currently take in order to become judges in India.The Court made it clear that the date of provisional registration as an advocate would be used to calculate this time of legal practice.
For existing candidates, this criterion won’t have an impact on any recruitment procedures that have already begun.
THE RATIO AND THE JUDGEMENT
“We hold that the minimum practice requirement of three years to appear for the civil judges (junior division) exam is restored,” the Court declared.
The Court did clarify, though, that this condition will not apply to judicial recruitment that is now underway. “Where the High Courts have already started the appointment process of civil judges (junior division), the minimum practice requirement shall not be applicable; this shall be applicable only when the next appointment process begins,” the Court further stated.The regulation was created to guarantee that those chosen to the judiciary possessed both practical legal competence and a firm grasp of courtroom procedures.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THIS RULING
The case started with a number of petitions contesting the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 2002 change to its judicial service rules, which mandated a three-year legal practice requirement for aspiring civil judges. In order to sit for judicial service exams for entry-level civil judge (junior division) seats, candidates had to have at least three years of experience as practicing attorneys. This rule was eventually copied by a number of other states.
“In the All India Judges’ case [1993] 4 SCC 288 at p. 314; this Court has observed that in order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three years’ standing,” the Supreme Court noted in its 2002 ruling in the All India Judges Association case. Experience has demonstrated over time that the Judicial Service does not attract the best talent available. After considering the opinions presented to it by various authorities, the Shetty Commission has recommended that the requirement that an applicant have been an advocate for at least three years be removed. After weighing all the facts, we agree with the Shetty Commission’s recommendation and the learned Amicus Curiae’s argument that an applicant who wants to join the Judicial Service should no longer need to be an advocate with at least three years of experience. Based on our experience from the rulings in All India Judges’ cases, we therefore urge the High Courts and State Governments to change their regulations to allow a recent law graduate who may not even have three years of experience to compete and join the Judicial Service”.
Now, The supreme court has taken the decision to restore the 3-year practice mandate.
VARIOUS OPINIONS
Advocates, such as the Bar Council of India and several state bar councils, contended that judges’ prior bar practice gave them the expertise they needed to handle complicated legal matters, enhancing the calibre of rulings and upholding the judiciary’s integrity.
Academics and recent law graduates, however, fiercely opposed the rule, arguing that it limited equal possibilities for recent law graduates by erecting an artificial barrier to judicial service. They maintained that the requirement discouraged gifted young people from pursuing professions in the judiciary by going beyond constitutional obligations and unduly limiting access to the judiciary.
However, junior division civil judges, whose eligibility is typically determined by state judicial service standards, are not necessarily covered by this provision; rather, it pertains only to district judges.
The Supreme Court recognized the value of practical experience for judges in the 2002 decision of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, but it did not make it a requirement.
Since then, state laws governing the judicial service have changed considerably; some have maintained the three-year minimum practice requirement, while others have allowed direct recruitment from law schools.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court reinstated the requirement that a candidate must have at least three years of experience as an advocate in order to apply for entry-level positions in the judicial service on Tuesday, May 20, in a significant ruling that would affect many candidates for the judiciary. The date of provisional enrollment could be used to calculate the practice period. However, the aforementioned requirement won’t apply to hiring procedures that the High Courts started earlier today. Stated differently, this requirement will only be applicable to upcoming hiring. According to the Supreme Court, this becomes a necessary rules as a solid understanding of courtroom procedures and learning will enhance the quality of judges.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
SAHIL YADAV, a law student at NLIU Bhopal, is a dedicated and passionate legal writer, who is keen to explore International law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Forensic Psychology and publish research papers and articles on contemporary legal nuances and issues. He is also interested in the intersection of disciplines like history, psychology, political science, philosophy, and sociology with law.