SC restores 3-year minimum practice requirement to enter judicial service
What's the story
The Supreme Court has reinstated the three-year minimum practice requirement for advocates applying for entry-level judicial service positions.
The condition is applicable from the date of provisional enrollment and will only be implemented in future recruitments, not those already initiated by high courts.
A certificate from a 10-year-standing advocate, endorsed by a local judicial officer, can prove this requirement.
For those practicing at the SC or HC, the endorsement should be by an officer designated by the court.
Judicial experience
Court's concerns over fresh law graduates in judiciary
One can also count the time spent as a law clerk toward the three years of practice needed.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the entry of fresh law graduates into the judicial service without any practical experience.
The court noted that such appointments have not been successful, citing issues faced during the last 20 years.
It stressed that knowledge from law books or pre-service training cannot replace firsthand experience in court operations and justice administration.
Ruling
'Introduction of certain number of years of practice is necessary'
"This (experience) is possible when the candidate is exposed to the working of the court...and observing how lawyers and judges function in the court," the SC said.
"The candidates should be equipped to understand the intricacies of a judge and therefore, we are in agreement with most of the high courts that the requirement of the introduction of certain number of years of practice is necessary."
Recruitment policy
Sikkim and Chhattisgarh are the only exceptions
The decision by the SC bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran comes in the wake of applications seeking to restore the three-year practice requirement, which was removed in 2002.
Most high courts and states believe that prior practice is essential for efficient functioning as judicial officers.
Sikkim and Chhattisgarh are the only high courts that have stated that the three-year practice requirement need not be restored.