3-Year Practice Rule: Today, the Supreme Court decided whether to reestablish a minimum of three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for applicants seeking to join the judicial service as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

Supreme Court Response:

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran restored the three-year minimum practice requirement for appearing in the Civil Judges (Junior Division) examination. “We hold that the three-year minimum practice requirement is restored,” the bench stated.

The Court formulated eight issues for consideration in the case. On the first question, it examined whether to reinstate the previously suggested 25 percent quota, with 10 percent reserved for promotions to higher judicial offices through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). After deciding in the affirmative, the Court ruled, “Restore the 25 percent quota as recommended in the 2022 judgment.”

Eligibility Criteria:

The second dispute focused on the eligibility requirements for the judicial service examination. The Court ruled that three years of legal practice must be a prerequisite and directed the authorities to amend the regulations accordingly.

Addressing points three and four, related to promotions within the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre, the Court decided to reserve 10% of the positions for promotion. This move aims to provide faster career advancement for deserving judicial officers.

On issue six, which concerns the suitability test, the Court clarified that no fixed formula exists. Instead, the competent authority must evaluate various factors, including the candidate’s performance, legal knowledge, and overall aptitude.

3-Year Practice Rule:

The Court answered “yes” to question seven, which asked whether to reinstate the minimum legal practice requirement before taking the judicial service exam. The Bench observed that scrapping this requirement had led to several practical problems. It stressed the need for prior courtroom experience before one assumes judicial responsibilities. Chief Justice Gavai pointed out that affidavits from multiple High Courts exposed serious issues caused by appointing fresh law graduates. He remarked, “This system will only function properly if candidates have actual courtroom experience. We agree with the High Courts that a minimum number of years in practice is necessary.”

The Court also clarified that the mandatory three-year legal practice must begin from the date of Bar Council enrollment, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The Bench explained that relying on the enrollment date provides a consistent benchmark, unlike the AIBE, which follows an irregular schedule. To verify a candidate’s legal practice, the Court directed Principal District Judges to issue the required certification. For those practicing before a High Court, a senior advocate with at least ten years of experience must sign off on the certificate.

The Court Key Guidelines are:

1. The service rules for Limited Departmental Competitive Exams must be changed by all state governments to reinstate the 25% reservation quota.
2. Ten percent of the positions in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre will be set aside for rapid promotions by the High Courts and State Governments.
3. In cases where there are no existing regulations for advancement to a higher cadre, new regulations will be created while taking into consideration the candidate’s overall competency, judgments written, and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
4. To take the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam, one must have at least three years of legal experience.
5. The Principal District Judge or a senior advocate (in the case of High Court practice) must certify the candidate.
6. All new judge appointees will be required to complete a year of training.
7. Recruitment procedures that have already been notified by the High Courts are exempt from the practice requirement.

Landmark Judgement on 3-Year Practice Rule:

In its landmark 1993 ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court stressed the necessity of a minimum of three years of advocacy experience before entering the judiciary, which started this issue. Later, authorities changed the rule following the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, which argued that the requirement discouraged talented recent graduates from pursuing a career in judicial service, leading to its removal.

Also Read: Indian Defence Chief Warns Pakistan’s GHQ Move on Military Range

Earlier, the Court allowed recent law graduates to sit for judicial service examinations if they completed formal judicial training. However, after several High Courts highlighted practical issues, the Supreme Court reconsidered this policy in the current case.

In today’s ruling, the Court reinstated the practice requirement, provided clear guidelines for its implementation, and emphasized the importance of gaining real-world legal experience before joining the judiciary.

Share

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•