Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The Indian judiciary is one of the most crucial pillars of democracy, entrusted quite firmly with upholding justice, ensuring true fairness, and maintaining the rule of law. However, recent developments concerning the mandatory three-year practice requirement for candidates appearing for state judiciary exams have sparked intense debate. While just the true intention behind this very rule might be just to ensure that judicial officers have a practical understanding of the legal system, in reality, it creates some significant hurdles for so many aspirants. Furthermore, it benefits in a disproportionate manner candidates from within legal families, thereby reinforcing the issue in a deep-seated way of judicial lineage inside India.
While the policy might seem reasonable now on the surface, it has several underlying issues that make it highly problematic:
One of the most glaring flaws of this rule is that it disproportionately favours candidates from legal families. These candidates are from legal families, disproportionately so. People from secure legal origins possess the means, networks, and fiscal stability to support themselves throughout the three-year practice phase. First-generation lawyers, conversely, often battle to establish themselves in the field due to financial constraints, lack of mentorship, along with limited networking opportunities. Many law graduates originating from non-legal backgrounds often find it quite difficult toward sustaining a three-year practice period without having a truly stable income.
Instead of hiring people who want to become judges, the majority of law firms prefer to hire people who are dedicated to long-term corporate legal careers. Because of this, a lot of people who want to work in the court have trouble finding fulfilling jobs that offer both financial security and real-world legal experience. Candidates from established legal families, on the other hand, have a big advantage because they can rely on family law firms or inherited clientele.
Judicial lineage has long been a matter of concern in India. A recent report from The Print highlighted that nearly 60 judges in India’s Supreme Court come from families of lawyers or judges. The three-year practice rule further strengthens this trend by making it easier for such candidates to qualify while discouraging others. Judicial diversity is essential in order to guarantee equitable representation and end the cycle of elitism in the legal profession. However, by creating additional barriers for first-generation lawyers, this rule perpetuates an exclusionary system where only a select group continues to dominate the judiciary.
The three-year minimum has the major disadvantage of needlessly delaying the entry of young talent into the judiciary. Fresh law graduates who are eager to contribute to the judicial system have to spend years practicing law before they can even attempt the judiciary exams. This not only results in the loss of youthful energy and enthusiasm but also discourages many capable candidates from pursuing judicial careers. Early recruitment of judges is more important than postponing their enrolment into the system in a nation with an excessive backlog of cases
The government might implement demanding judicial training programs for recent graduates who meet the requirements and qualify judiciary tests, rather than requiring three years of experience. To guarantee that applicants receive the required exposure before to taking on their positions as judges, these programs might incorporate practical training in court processes, case management, and legal research.
It might be possible to implement a structured apprenticeship model, akin to those used in many corporate and bureaucratic areas. A year-long apprenticeship under seasoned judges might be offered to chosen applicants, giving them the opportunity to obtain practical experience without the financial uncertainty of private practice.
To guarantee that all prospective judges obtain sufficient practical training, the judiciary should embrace alternative models including judicial training programs, apprenticeships, and improved law school curricula rather than enforcing unjustified experience requirements. Without the obstacles that presently prevent people from obtaining bench time, India may develop a more diverse, inclusive, and capable judiciary by emphasising merit, skill-based evaluations, and organised training.
If India truly aims to reform its judicial system and make it more accessible to talented individuals from all backgrounds, it must reconsider the three-year practice requirement and implement policies that prioritize competence over privilege.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.
Fantastic shivam bhai!!