.jpg)
Supreme court makes it mandatory to complete minimum 3 years practice as an advocate in its recent judgement on 20th may to be eligible for entry level judicial posts.
- Ritik Agrawal
- Jun 13
- 2 min read
Tahura khan,
RTMNU’s, Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court mandated that applicants for the position of civil judge (Junior) must have at least three years of experience. Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling. It was mentioned in the ruling that-
All State governments shall amend regulations to guarantee that any candidate applying for the cvil judges (junior division) exam has a minimum practice of three years. We maintain that the 3 year minimum practice requirement to appear for the exam is restored. A lawyer with ten years of standing at the bar must certify and endorse this. Experience working as a judge's legal clerk will also be taken into consideration. Before serving as judge, they (entrants into the judicial service) must complete a year of training.
This Judgement created various conditions for judicial aspirants in order to appear for judicial services such as,
It is now required for candidates to present a certificate signed by an advocate who has been practicing law for at least ten years in order to verify that they have completed the three-year requirement. In order to guarantee judicial competence and efficiency, practical court experience is crucial," the CJI said when delivering the ruling, as reported by PTI. The Court has recognized that the mandatory three-year experience might include time spent working as a judge's law clerk, performing duties including legal research, drafting, and helping with courtroom procedures. These activities will be beneficial for candidates as they will become familiar with the legal procedures making it easier to handle cases and delivering judgements.Additionally, the Court has also underlined that all new hires to the judicial service are required to finish a thorough one-year training program. Thus making the candidates more eligible and competent for the task.
Certain directions were also issued by the Court such as-
To restore the 25 percent reservation quota, all State Governments must amend the service regulations for Limited Departmental Competitive Exams.
High Courts and State Governments shall reserve 10% of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre slots for quick promotions. When there are no rules in place for promotion to a higher cadre, new rules will be developed while taking the candidate's overall competency, written judgment, and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) into account.
The judgement to be applied prospectively –
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, while pronouncing the verdict, stated:
“The minimum practice requirement shall not be applicable where the High Courts have already commenced the appointment process of Civil Judges (Junior Division) before the date of this judgement. It shall apply only from the next recruitment cycle.”
Conclusion-
Several petitions, particularly from Madhya Pradesh, questioned the practice of allowing law graduates to join the courts without any prior courtroom experience. The petitioners argued that this lack of exposure affected the quality of court decisions and undermined the credibility of the subordinate courts. The Supreme Court was compelled by these issues to examine the civil judge hiring process critically. Following careful consideration, the Court determined that a candidate must have at least three years of legal practice prior to sitting for the Judicial Service exam. The arguments raised in several petitions directly led to this ruling, which is a significant change intended to strengthen the judiciary locally. Thus this Judgement has up till now has received mixed views by legal professionals, some arguing that it creates a barrier for a graduate from 5 year course due to its lengthy procedure and some argue that this judgement was necessary to bring reforms and it creates a well structured judiciary.
References-
Comments