'3-Year Practice Condition Should Remain, Only Issue Is Modalities': Supreme Court In Review Hearing; Extends Civil Judge Application Dates

While hearing petitions seeking review of the 3-year practice rule, the Supreme Court on Friday directed all High Courts to extend the last date of application for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Posts until April 30, 2026.A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran ordered :"All the High Courts are directed to extend the date of last date of submission of applications if they have already advertised the post up to 30th of April 2026. Fresh advertisement to be issued by State/High Courts or State Public Service Commission shall also have the deadline of April 30, 2026."The bench passed the order after being informed that the recruitment process in some states have started. The bench will hear the review petitions next week. Though Senior Advocate Pinky Anand requested the Court to keep in abeyance the practice requirement, the bench refused. The CJI assured that the review petitions will be taken up next week, and told that the extension of date will take care of the urgency aspect.During the hearing today, CJI Surya Kant observed that the 3-year mandate has been set by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which should be respected. The only issue is evolving the modalities for implementing the rule, the CJI said."Ultimately, let's be very clear. The practice condition will have to be there. There is the view taken by a bench and we should respect that bench. The only issue is the modalities of giving effect to that," CJI Surya Kant said. "3 years [condition] should be there. But does that mean an advocate sitting idle in one court or the other and watching? Is that going to make them eligible? Or make them free legal aid counsel. That is a very good idea," CJI said."The point of the practice requirement is that you learn something," CJI stated.The CJI also commented during the hearing that special relaxations for women and specially abled persons may not be practical.Want mature persons to come to judiciary : CJIAt the outset, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in the matter, apprised the bench about the suggestions given by the High Courts and law universities. He informed that High Courts have broadly supported the practice requirement, with some High Courts suggesting certain relaxations for candidates with disabilities. Some law universities have opposed the practice requirement, and many have suggested alternatives for persons with disabilities. Prof. Faizan Mustafa, through the CNLU, has supported doing away with the practice requirement and suggested increasing the training period for civil judges, the amicus stated.Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, submitted that the practice requirement created several hardships and will increase the age of candidates coming to the entry posts, since the exams are not regularly held on an annual basis. She also contended that the requirement put women at more hardship. She recommended that the Court stay the mandate, while the modalities are re-assessed.Justice Chandran said :“There is a whole difficulty. When I sat in the Constitution Bench also I said. Now the source is the coaching centers. I don't mind saying that in the open court. That is the entire problem. I have been a Chief Justice, I have been a senior judge in the court. I have gone through interviews. We have seen the district judges. It is not, don't say that without any empirical formula. From our experience, we are telling you”, Justice Chandran remarkedHe added that candidates joining judicial services should have a degree of maturity, "We want that slightly mature persons to come in judicial services."Practice condition should have been introduced in a phased manner: CJICJI Kant observed that many bright students were choosing corporate careers because of the three-year practice condition. He said the rule could have been introduced in a phased manner - beginning with a one-year requirement and gradually increasing to three years - instead of being applied uniformly at once.“It should have been imposed in a phased manner, the first year it should have been one year, next then 2 years, then 3 years. That is the way court created law is made applicable in the past practices also. We have unfortunately thrusted upon directly. Because of that, there is a lot of hue and cry in all the top law schools. Students are not going to wait for 3 years to waste their time. They are the children who have competed through written exam. A competitive test, a test which is now more rigorous than the NEET or than the Medical and they have got admission as per their merit. Parents have spent a lot of money how they are not in a position to wait. That is the crisis we are facing. How to balance both plus women also”, he said.Relaxations for women and specially abled persons may not be workable : CJIThe amicus submitted that there is a suggestion to relax the requirement for women and specially abled persons. "One suggestion is that some relaxation only...

'3-Year Practice Condition Should Remain, Only Issue Is Modalities': Supreme Court In Review Hearing; Extends Civil Judge Application Dates

Amisha Shrivastava

Relaxations for women and specially abled candidates may not be practical, the CJI commented.

Tags