TFor months, the anxiety has been increasing for months around the expectation of the Supreme Court (SC), which would bring a rule in which the advocate would need three years of experience to become eligible to write court services.
And now, May 20, a triple bench headed by the main judge of India (CJI) Br Gavai, which also included the judges AG Masih and Kv Chandran, has made a practical experience of three years before to appear for the test of subordinate court services. The judgment justified the hypothesis that SC was consistently inconsistent on this issue. No empirical evidence of the “lower quality” of fresh graduates (paragraph 57) was submitted to the Court, and it was not even the number of fresh graduates who qualified for court services within one year of the end of the judgment. The court simply returned to the three -year rule because most of the Supreme Courts defended for it.
The history of the rule
This matter has accepted several twists as a time when it was approached in 1958 in the 14th Indian report of the Commission for the Legal Act (LCI), which is presided over by MC Setalvad. The Commission claimed that people with experience between three and five years should be competent to compete in tests for a lower subordinate judge in each state. This exam was supposed to have questions of practical aspects and would not depend on the memory of the Rote itself. The ability to propose requests, appreciate evidence and write judgments should be tested. Unfortunately, the current questionnaires of most trials of court services continue to test only memory.
The court service (Aijs), a centralized recruitment system for judges, was proposed for higher judiciary. The Commission report was of the opinion that it was necessary to click the brilliant university graduates at the right time for court services. Aij therefore did not require any practical experience. Anyone who has a legal title should be eligible from 21-25 years and practical experience should be developed through a “carefully designed training scheme”, which includes practical work in the courts. The test was to be carried out at the national level. This means that the report claimed that two different sets of capability criteria (lower subordinate judges) and national level (Aijs).
The Association of Judges All India versus the Indian Association of 1992 began the question of “uniformity” under the conditions of judges throughout India. The judgment approved the report of the LCI and its provisions on AIJ, including recommendations that allow graduates of new rights to compete in the exam. The best court issued instructions to the Indian Association to set up aij. However, the submitted petition of the Judges Associations Filed in 1993 decided that minimum legal practice was necessary for qualifications for the subordinate service examination.
Court in All India Judge Assn. (Ii) Versus Indian Union (1993) decided “in most countries there is a minimum qualification to be eligible for the post of civil judge-cum-Magistrate, first class/judge of first class/munsiff is the municipality except right, but in some countries is that it is in some countries. The lawyer did not prove himself as a successful experiment.
The court also observed: “Experience as a lawyer is therefore necessary to allow the judge to effectively fulfill his duties and functions …”
Thus, the Court issued a strong order: “Therefore, we order all states to take immediate steps to prescribe three years of experience as a lawyer as one of the basic qualifications for recruitment as a court official at the lowest Rung.”
Talent
The Justice Shetty Commission, established in 1996, found that while almost all states had followed the three -year rule, some countries have exceeded and prescribed for more than three years as a minimum qualification. The report also said that defenders of 4-7 years of experience were selected only at the age of 27 to 30 years. Therefore, in the Association of Judges of All India Versus Union India (2002), the Supreme Court accepted Shetty Commission recommendations that the three -year rules could not attract the best talent to the court services and withstand the rule. The court was honest when he admitted that “Over time, experience has proven that the best talent available is not attracted by the court service. The bright young graduate after 3 years of practice considers a court service that is not sufficiently attractive. She gave at least 3 years “that could be held, if it could be assumed that it would be at least 3 years old should be affected that it would be considered that it would be at least 3 years, if it were almost 3 years, it should be held for at least 3 years. ”
The Supreme Court has now returned to the three -year rule, because the key question of how to balance the best talent along with the necessary skills is still valid.
Because it must understand the ground reality. No one can deny that the best students of law are today at national legal universities. Most of these students get a lucrative company placement with huge salary packages. Many of them also have to repay loans for education, because five -year fees for almost all legal universities are between £ 12 Lakh. Renomed private legal schools charge even more, between ₹ -40 £ lakh.
Again, SC hopes that three years of experience can help future judges in solving decor in the courtroom, complex procedural cases and understanding the perspectives of all parties of the court system. It is said that young candidates lack maturity, empathy and patience. However, the fact is that most candidates who wish to practice do not see judgment services as a career option, while those who want to enter the court services rarely see practice as a career. Most countries are difficult to occupy vacancies of higher court services due to poor performance of candidates during written exams. Rajasthan recently announced that he was not found by any single candidate.
The fact is that the mandatory three -year rule of practice is significantly discouraged by the clearer mind from entering the court services. The worst affecting would be economically backward and SC/ST/ST/OC candidates, because they cannot afford to wait. It is necessary to start earning. These candidates would like to write exams to enter the public services, public sector companies (PSU) or even join the academic community.
Various challenges
The Indian Bar Association has encouraged higher advocates and companies to pay at least 15,000 GBP in rural areas and 20,000 GBP in municipal centers to junior lawyers. This bare minimum scholarship is not enough for a student of the right to have no field connection. Delhi are paid 20,371 GBP per month for administrative work or supervisory work in a planned job. An unskilled worker is paid 18, 456 GBP per month according to the Minimum Wage Act. If the three -year condition is returned, only financially audible candidates should luxury to appear for court services.
According to justice report in India, women are 38% of judges in the district judge. Nine out of the top 10 candidates from the recently organized Bihar Judicial Services exams were candidates. Now, if a three -year rule is introduced, many of these women who are undergoing career breaks or maternity leaves will be failing.
Another problem is with regard to age. In order to appear for public services exams, the minimum criterion of competence is to be a student of a three -year study program in the last year. But for a court of law, five -six years of education, along with three years of experience, would make them highly financially vulnerable and older compared to their counterparts in civil servants. This classification would not be based on the understandability of differentia or achieve a rational object of attracting the best minds. Moreover, unlike public services, the court of court services in most countries is not at regular intervals. Although the candidate has met three -year criteria, he has to wait several years for the exam to be advertised.
What can be done?
The solution is to capture young talents and strengthen the training period for two or more years and use the best of the academic and practical skills to increase the effectiveness of the lower position of the judiciary. Sangers may be obliged to serve as a probation staff for the merger of the district and the judge of the Supreme Court to strengthen their understanding of the courtroom. For six months, they can also be connected to higher lawyers.
We also have to reform and come up with innovative questions. The exam should be based on the scenario -based issues and the writing of judgment should be more weight. The exclusion of fresh talent can cause more damage than the benefit of our judicial system.
Faizan Mustafa is vice -chairman, Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Shrey Shalin is IS LL.M. National Law University candidate, Delhi. The views expressed are personal.
Published – May 21, 2025 08:30
