Supreme Court Hears Concerns Over Allowing Law Graduates To Enter Judicial Service Without Practice As Advocate

The Supreme Court today(January 28) considered the issue of whether the condition of three years of practice at the Bar in addition to a legal degree needs to be restored to appear for the Civil Judge(Junior Division) exam in light of various issues faced by the High Courts in terms of lack of exposure on the functioning of courts. This requirement was done away with by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association case(2002).A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, AG Masih and KV Chandran is currently hearing a writ petition filed by the All India Judges Association in which various issues from judges' pensions to service conditions have been raised. One of the issues on which the deliberation took place through Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar is whether the three years of legal practice should be restored. Amicus Curiae raised concerns about allowing fresh law graduates entry to the judicial service without any practical experience as an advocate.Bhatnagar submitted that the issue was first dealt with in the All India Judges Association(1993) case in which the Court had observed: "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 begotten through legal practice. The practice involves much more than mere advocacy a lawyers has to interact with several components of the administration of justice. The experience as a lawyer is, therefore, essential to enable the judge to discharge his duties and functions efficiently and with confidence and circumspection.Many States have hence prescribed a minimum of three years' practice as a lawyer as an essential qualification for appointment as a judicial officer at the lowest rung. It is, hence, necessary that all the States prescribe the said minimum practice as a lawyer as a necessary qualification for recruitment to the lowest rung in the judiciary. In this connection, it may be pointed out that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, no person is eligible to be appointed a District Judge unless he has been an advocate or a pleader for no less than seven years while Articles 217(2)(b) and 124(3)(b) require at least ten years' practice as an advocate of a High Court for the appointment of a person to the posts of the Judge of the High Court and the Judge of the Supreme Court, respectively. We, therefore, direct that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years' practice as a lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as the judicial officer at the lowest rung."However, based on the recommendation of the 1996 Justice K.J. Shetty Commission(First National Judicial Pay Commission), the requirement was done away with in the 2002 judgment of the All India Judges Association.In the 2002 judgment, as read by Bhatnagar, the Supreme Court observed:"In the All India Judges's case [1993] 4 SCC 288 at p. 314; this Court has observed that in order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three year's standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after 3 year of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with.After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the Judicial Service to be an Advocate of at least three years' standing we accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges' cases direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in even three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the Judicial Service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one years, preferably two years."Shetty Commission reasoned that because of the three years of practice, young law graduates are no longer attracted to judicial services. It was stated that instead of the three years of wait, it is better that some training is imparted to them for a year or two. However, Justice Gavai stated that earlier the service conditions were not "attractive" but now it is. He said: "Now, the service conditions are so attractive that a lawyer with three years of practice would be more than willing to [enter in judicial service]."The amicus took the Court through the views of the various High ...

Supreme Court Hears Concerns Over Allowing Law Graduates To Enter Judicial Service Without Practice As Advocate

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Several High Courts have demanded that the experience at the bar must be made a condition to appear for the judicial service exam.

Tags