Brief Context
Context The Supreme Court restored the condition that a minimum of three years practice as an advocate is required for candidates applying to entry-level judicial service examinations. Background The issue dates back to the 14th Law Commission Report, 1958, which proposed 3–5 years of experience as a requirement for lower subordinate judges in every State. For higher judiciary, an All India Judicial Services (AIJS), a centralised recruitment system for judges, was proposed.
Source Content
Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance
Context
- The Supreme Court restored the condition that a minimum of three years practice as an advocate is required for candidates applying to entry-level judicial service examinations.
Background
- The issue dates back to the 14th Law Commission Report, 1958, which proposed 3–5 years of experience as a requirement for lower subordinate judges in every State.
- For higher judiciary, an All India Judicial Services (AIJS), a centralised recruitment system for judges, was proposed. The AIJS required no practical experience.
- The Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India supported allowing fresh graduates in the AIJS.
- However, in a 1993 review, the SC reversed its stance.
- The Shetty Commission, 1996, later found that this rule deterred bright talent and in 2002, the SC scrapped the 3-year rule, admitting that legal practice was not attracting the best minds to the judiciary.
Arguments in Favour of the Rule
- Bridges Theory-Practice Gap: Most law colleges lack practical training. Court exposure equips candidates with procedural knowledge, evidence handling, and courtroom etiquette.
- Improved Judgment Quality: Experience fosters better reasoning, empathy, and understanding of litigants’ challenges, leading to higher-quality verdicts and fewer procedural errors.
- Safeguard Against External Pressures: Prior experience builds resilience and ethical grounding, especially crucial in lower courts prone to influence and pressure.
- Global Best Practice: Countries like Canada, UK, and Australia require prior experience for judicial posts, emphasizing maturity and professional credibility.
Arguments Against
- Impact on Attracting Talent: Best law students from National Law Universities (NLUs) are increasingly drawn to lucrative corporate jobs, not judiciary.
- Irregular Examinations and Age Limit: Judicial service exams are not conducted annually in many states.
- Adding three years’ experience requirement, on top of a 5-year law degree, could push candidates beyond age limits or deter them from the exam altogether.
- Gender Implications: As per the India Justice Report, women account for 38% of the judges in district judiciary.
- They may find it difficult to meet the requirement due to maternity breaks or social constraints.
- Social implications: The economically marginalised sections are most disadvantaged, as they need to begin earning early. The added delay deters aspirants from such backgrounds.
Way Ahead
- Extended Training Instead of Practice: Recruit young law graduates and subject them to a rigorous two-year training programme, combining academic instruction and courtroom exposure.
- Reform in Exam Pattern: Shift focus from rote memorization to scenario-based questions, evidence appreciation, and judgment writing.
- This aligns with the original vision of the 14th Law Commission for practical legal assessment.
- Incentivizing Judicial Careers: Better stipends and career progression pathways can attract top legal minds to the judiciary.
Source: TH