New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict that could alter the landscape of judicial recruitment and affect countless law graduates in the country, has restored the mandatory requirement of three years of legal practice for becoming a civil judge.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said the appointment of fresh law graduates as civil judges had led to several problems and hadn’t been as successful.
“We hold that the three-year minimum practice requirement to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam is restored,” Chief Justice Gavai ruled.
Among the reasons for restoring the pre-2002 system was feedback from high courts that the recruitment of fresh law graduates as civil judges showed that they weren’t well-versed with the nitty-gritty of the litigation process or the administration of justice.
In 2002, the Supreme Court had scrapped the three-year legal practice requirement to attract the “best talent” in the judiciary. Tuesday’s ruling effectively reverses that decision.
Apart from the high courts of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh, most other high courts and state governments agreed with this requirement of retaining the legal practice requirement.
The court said that judicial officers are entrusted with matters of life, liberty, and property, adding that their role demands more than just theoretical or academic knowledge.
Underlining that there is no alternative to first-hand experience gathered in courts, the bench—also comprising Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran—directed all state governments to amend their judicial service rules and make sure that all candidates sitting for the civil judge (junior division) exam have a practice of a minimum of three years.
The court said, in its 63-page ruling, that this experience must be certified by a lawyer with at least 10 years of standing at the Bar.
State governments shall amend rules and ensure that candidates appearing for the civil judges (junior division) exam shall have at least three years practice, which will be certified and endorsed by lawyers with at least 10 years standing at the Bar.
The court said experience as a law clerk to judges would also count towards the three-year practice requirement. All successful candidates must go through one year of mandatory training after they have cleared the selection process, it added.
“All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination,” it said.
“To fulfill the said requirement, the Rules shall mandate that the candidate produces a certificate to that effect duly certified either by the Principal Judicial Officer of that Court or by an advocate of that Court having a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer at such a station,” it added.
Although this ruling was reserved after a round of arguments on 28 January this year, it was finally pronounced on Tuesday at 10.30 am.
Also Read: ‘No shortcuts’: Tracing delivery boy-turned-civil judge Muhammed Yaseen’s journey to success
Who does this apply to?
The court’s Tuesday ruling specified that the three-year practice requirement would apply prospectively; that is, to future candidates. It will not affect the existing recruitment process and these directions will come into effect in the next recruitment process, the court said.
Moreover, this three-year requirement will not apply to judicial appointments where High Courts have already begun the selection process.
The three years will be considered from the date of provisional enrolment as an advocate, as opposed to the date of clearing the All India Bar Examination. The court gave this direction while taking note of the differing schedules of the exam in different states.
The three-year requirement & why it was undone
The Supreme Court introduced the three-year practice requirement for civil judges in the All India Judges Association vs Union of India case in 1993.
The court said that candidates for judicial service must have at least three years’ experience as advocates.
However, as time passed by, experience showed that the “best talent” was not getting attracted to the judicial services, the apex court noted in a 2002 ruling in the All India Judges Association vs. Union of India case.
“A bright young law graduate after three years 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,” a bench of Justices B.N. Kirpal and V.N. Khare had ruled.
In 1996, the government set up the Shetty Commission to study the service conditions and salary structures of judicial officers, under the Chairmanship of Justice K.J. Shetty.
The court ruled that such a requirement would no longer be mandatory for an applicant who wishes to enter the judicial services, and directed high courts and state governments to amend their rules to allow fresh law graduates to become eligible.
“We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one year, preferably two years,” it added.
How the Bar views this move
Former Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice Rajiv Shakdher emphasised the importance of experience in entry-level judicial appointments.
“The first is that the experience of the past two decades has shown that judges of almost all high courts, barring Sikkim and Chhattisgarh, have come to the conclusion that some experience is required while selecting candidates. Second, the periodicity of the experience and when it should commence,” he told ThePrint.
“In my view, experience is required because when you sit on a bench as a fresher, it is important to imbibe the manner in which a court has to be run, apart from the technical skills that you have to bring to the job. Life experiences are very important in judging, which you can only obtain if you have some experience with litigants while in practice,” he added.
Justice Shakdher, who has also served as a Delhi High Court judge, also emphasised the importance of the human dimension of litigation.
“If you are in the judge’s or lawyers’ chambers, you get acquainted with the human facets of litigation as well. Therefore, the court saying it should be a minimum of three years is, in my view, the correct way to go forward.”
“Now, although one could debate if the practice period should be two or three years, the court’s direction that it should start from when the lawyer is provisionally registered with the Bar Council will certainly assuage those concerns,” Justice Shakdher added.
Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Namit Saxena echoed the same sentiment.
Terming the ruling as “a much-needed direction”, he said, “A law graduate will always be in a better position to adjudicate a case if she has undergone practical training for a considerable amount of time, such as three to four years, before delving into the role of decision-making.”
Saxena said this would also help get rid of a “tutored judiciary”.
“Lately, law graduates immediately after finishing law school have been rushing to coaching centres instead of courts to equip themselves. This erodes the quality of judges at the trial level as they have no real-life experience of courts,” he said
Delhi-based judge turned lawyer Bharat Chugh said the three-year requirement wouldn’t make a “huge difference” as many young, idealistic law graduates have already brought energy to the system.
“The training part does take care of a lot of things. It’s an extensive training of one year, which is rigorous and, I can say from experience, life-changing. I don’t think a three-year lawyering experience is going to make a huge difference,” Chugh said.
“Law is a marathon, not a sprint. It takes a decade to find one’s feet in the Bar,” he said. “Given how unstructured the profession is and the absence of a level playing field, many candidates who want to enter the judicial services may not have avenues open to them in practice and may not end up getting good opportunities. I believe catching them young and training them in life as a judge has certain benefits.”
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Granting acquittal without written orders catches up with civil judge as MP HC upholds dismissal