3-year practice as lawyer must to enter judicial service, rules Supreme Court
Noting that the appointment of fresh law graduates as judges has led to many problems, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a candidate must have at least three years of practice as a lawyer to appear for an examination to enter judicial service.
Restoring the requirement of three-year minimum law practice to appear for the Civil Judges (Junior Division) Examination, a Bench led by CJI BR Gavai emphasised that experience as a lawyer was essential to enable the Judge to discharge his/her duties and functions efficiently and with confidence.
“All 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 practised for a minimum period of three years to be eligible for the said examination,” said the Bench which also included Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
“The number of years of practice completed by a candidate desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) be calculated from the date of their provisional enrolment/registration with the State Bar Council concerned,” the top court directed.
It also increased the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service from 10% to 25% and reduced the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) from five years to three years.
The Bench, however, clarified that the three-year minimum practice condition to enter judicial service will apply only to future recruitments and not to the recruitment process already notified by states/high courts before this judgment.
It directed that all recruitment processes be kept in abeyance due to the pendency of the issue before it shall now proceed in terms of the amended rules as directed by it.
The Bench ordered that all the amendments shall be carried out by high courts in three months and the State Governments concerned shall consider and approve the same within a further period of three months,” it said.
"From the affidavits of almost all the High Courts, it is seen that for the last 20 years during which fresh law graduates have been appointed as judicial officers without a single day of practice at the Bar has not been a successful experience. Such fresh law graduates have led to many problems…,” it said.
“The Judges from the very day on which they assume office have to deal with the questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of litigants… neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court-system and the administration of justice.
“This is possible only when a candidate is exposed to the atmosphere in the court by assisting the seniors and observing how the lawyers and the Judges function in the court. The candidate should be equipped to understand the intricacies of the functions of a Judge. The experience of various High Courts has also shown that such fresh law graduates, upon their entry in judicial service, begin to show behavioural and temperament problems,” the top court said.
Earlier, the condition of a minimum practice of three years for a candidate to apply for judicial service examinations was there in most of the states but the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002) said it was not a binding requirement. Following the 2002 verdict, some states did away with the three-year practice requirement while others followed it, leading to the current litigation.
On Tuesday, the top court restored the condition of three-year practical experience as a lawyer to appear for an examination to enter judicial service.
The Bench noted, “We are conscious of the fact that in the initial years, the opportunities available to a young lawyer, fresh from college will be minimal. However, the exposure to courts and more particularly litigants and their briefs would acquaint them with the onerous duties and responsibilities of every stakeholder in the judicial system. It would bring in sensitivity to human problems, more clarity in the decision-making process and educate them of the role of the Bar in justice dispensation.”
