BREAKING| Supreme Court Expresses Reservations About 3-Year Practice Rule To Join Judicial Service, Says Women Affected

The Supreme Court on Thursday orally expressed certain reservations about the 3-year practice condition to join the judicial service at entry level posts, particularly highlighting the impact on women aspirants.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice AG Masih was hearing the review petitions filed against last year's judgment which restored the 3-year practice condition.

The CJI said that the rule has caused anxieties among women.

"Most important issue is regarding young girls. Now almost 60% of judicial officer are girls, so that is very important to us. Because of this condition... No doubt practice is important, but we also have to see impact on young talent. This creates a vacuum for 3 years," CJI said. 

The CJI said that women are anxious whether they will be able to complete the practice condition due to societal pressures to marry and start family.

"Girls are really shaken. Girls are the potential of our merit. Because of this condition, there is fear that they will never be able to complete because the family will not allow to complete. They will get married, get settled here and there... More of the social issues, " CJI said.

The Chief Justice further raised concerns about the availability of meritorious candidates.

"We have to imporve the system. No doubt. Practice is a very important component of judicial service. But how to introduce it in such a manner that it does not deprive us from the consideration of meritorious candidates, that it does not create a vacuum of three years. Situation is like this now, if you go for recruitment today, you do not have any fresh pass out. So who are the only candidates available? Those who tried their luck and did not succeed. Or those who never tried and want to take a chance now," CJI Kant said.

The Court sought the responses of the Registrar Generals of the High Courts on the review petitions. 

Recently, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, speaking at a public function, had commented that the impact of this rule on women aspirants needs to be carefully observed.

In May last year, the Supreme Court had restored the rule requiring a minimum of three years' practice as an advocate to be eligible for appointment to entry-level posts in the judicial service. The judgment had revived the earlier requirement, which had been relaxed in 2002, and held that prior courtroom experience was essential to ensure competence and maturity among judicial officers at the trial level.