SC Mandates 3-Year Practice to Appear in Judicial Services Examinations

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