Years Practice Required For Judicial Service Examination?

Index
•Synopsis 
•Introduction
•Background: The core issue
•Potential outcomes and their impacts
oIf three years practice is made mandatory
oIf three years practice is not made mandatory
•Alternatives Proposed by the Stakeholders 
•Comparative Analysis of the global practices 
•Case Laws 
•Conclusion 
•FAQs

Synopsis 

There is an ongoing debate before the Supreme Court of India regarding the mandatory three years of practice that is required to gain entry into the lower judiciary, and this debate has a far-reaching implication for judicial appointments. The core issue of this argument is whether the fresh law graduates should be allowed to appear for judicial services examination or whether legal practice is required to make sure that judicial competence is carried on. The court has a forthcoming judgement which is going to address this constitutional and policy related question. This judgement is set to ensure access, diversity and quality within the system of judiciary. The stakeholders—including lawyers, students, and the legal scholar have put forth various alternatives that range from structured training to apprenticeship models, for the sake of balancing experience with inclusivity. In this article, there will be a comparative analysis of other countries with similar legal systems in order to reflect upon the diverse eligibility norms which will provide the valuable insights required for possible reforms in India.

Introduction

In a landmark case that may redefine the contours of the entry in judicial services in India, the Supreme Court is all set to decide whether a minimum of three years of legal practice should be made a requirement for the aspirants of the lower judiciary. This issue is getting reheated by the amendments made to the Madhya Pradesh judicial service rules. This amendment has stirred a nationwide discussion amongst the legal professionals, students of law, academicians and the policy makers. On one side of this argument is the professional maturity and experience you’ll comprehend through prior advocacy and on the other side is the call for a broader accessibility, academic merit, and youthful energy in the system of judiciary. As the nation is awaiting the apex court judgements, the outcome will not only decide the future of thousands of judicial aspirins, but it will also highlight India’s vision for a capable, inclusive and future ready judiciary. this article is going to dive into the heart of the controversy and explore the potential implications of the ruling, examining stakeholder perspective and comparing judicial entry norms from across the world.

Background: The core issue

The main question revolving around this issue is whether the candidates must possess three years of legal practice in order to be eligible for judicial service exams, specifically for the position of civil Judge (Junior division). 
This debate has gained momentum following the amendments to the Madhya Pradesh judicial service rules which has stipulated that the candidates must either have

• three years of practice as an advocate 
• or be a remarkably outstanding law graduate within a minimum of 70% marks (50% for the reserved categories) in their LLB examinations. 

These amendments have been challenged which has led to the current deliberations in the Supreme Court.

Potential outcomes and their impacts

If three years practice is made mandatory
The potential outcomes and impacts in case the three years of practice is considered mandatory, would be as follows:

• Delay in entry: The fresh law graduates would have to wait out straight for three years before they can appear for the judicial exams. This delayed entry has a potential of deterring many aspirants from pursuing a career in judiciary.
• Reduction in diversity: The different candidates who belong to the marginalised communities and those without a legal background would find it very challenging to sustain themselves during this mandatory practice period. Because of this challenging situation for these communities, what will possibly happen is their representation in the judiciary will decline, leading to a reduced diversity in the judicial forum.
• Concerns related to quality: The critics are arguing that a practice duration does not guarantee the possible development of important skills required for judiciary. The quality of the judgements is not necessarily going to improve after the implementation of this requirement.

If three years practice is not made mandatory
If the three years of practice is not made mandatory, then the impact of this decision would be as follows:

• Increase in accessibility: The fresh law graduates can directly enter the judiciary. This will make the profession more accessible for a broader range of aspirants.
• Need for robust training: In order to compensate for the lack of practical experience, there will be comprehensive training programs that would be essential for the new judges to get equipped with the necessary skills for judicial services.
• Potential for enhanced diversity: Removing the requirement for practising can possibly lead to a more diverse judiciary, which will be a reflection of a broader spectrum of our society.

Alternatives Proposed by the Stakeholders

The stakeholders have proposed certain alternatives, which are as follows:

• Structured training programmes: Which will implement intensive pre-service training for the fresh Law graduates in order to bridge the gap of experience between the aspirants and their dreams.
• Apprenticeship models: Introduction of apprenticeship under senior judges in order to allow the candidates to gain practical insights without having to financially strain themselves doing an independent practice.
• Merit based criteria: It will focus on the academic excellence and rigourous examinations in order to assess a candidates suitability for the judicial role.

Comparative Analysis of the global practices

The candidates in Italy can become magistrates through public examinations without having any prior legal practice. Whereas for Scotland, the candidates require a minimum of 10 years in legal qualification for certain judicial posts. In Australia, it varies by state, some positions require several years of legal experience, while other positions may have a different criteria. In Canada, it is typically required at least 10 years of having a legal practice to be appointed in judiciary. In England and Wales, the aspiring district judges usually need at least 5 to 7 years of post qualification experience as a barrister or a solicitor. Although exceptional candidates may get considered with slightly less, if they present a strong competency through the selection panels. Spain has a similar “career judiciary” path, which demands that the entrance be passed in highly competitive national exam and undergo two years of judicial training, however, that does not stipulate a fixed period of prior practice. In Canada, provincial judicial appointments, usually need a minimum of 10 years of standing at the bar combined with evidence of professional excellence and community involvement. There are no direct junior judge examinations, candidates apply and are selected by independent advisory committees. Australia varies by state, in New South Wales and Victoria. The candidates for magistrate position usually require at least five years of legal practice and on top of that they need a proven record of advocacy or judicial support work.

Ireland follows a “ career judiciary” model in which the law graduates complete two years under a senior judge and then the judicial studies Institute provides a structured pre-appointment training that has no strict in years practice rule beyond the initial  experience. Contrasting to that, we have Singapore, which requires seven years of legal practice before an individual gets considered for practice in the subordinate courts, but it also offers a direct entry for the top LLB graduates into its judicial service with an intensive three year training program.

These various models show the different between prior advocacy experience and a formal training, which illustrates that a high-quality judicial competence can be built from the ground up through  multiple ways-either by mandating peers at the bar, emphasising the competitive examinations and trainings, or blending the early entry with rigorous institutional apprenticeships.

Case Laws

1.All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1991)
Citation : 1992 AIR 165; 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 36
The Supreme Court in this judgment made necessary a legal practice of minimum of three years as an essential qualification to be recruited into the subordinate judiciary, this verdict emphasised on the importance of practical experience for judicial competence.

2.All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002)
Citation : AIR 2002 SC 1752;(2002) 4 SCC 247
In this case the Supreme Court revisited it’s earlier stance and accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and held that three year practice would no longer be mandatory, this verdict allowed fresh law graduates to directly enter the judicial services.

3.Garima Khare v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)
Citation: W.P. No.28853 of 2024, decided on April1st 2024.
In this verdict the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2023 amendment to Rule 7 to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, this stipulated that the candidates must have either three years of legal practice or they should have secured at least 70% marks in their LL.B degree.

4.State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024)
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.48636 of 2024
The Supreme Court stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order which had restrained the recruitment of civil judges without the mandatory three-year practice, this allowed the recruitment process to continue under the amended rules pending a final verdict.

FAQs

1.Is three years of practice mandatory to be a judge in India?
It’s not mandatory across India, some states like Madhya Pradesh require it, but the Supreme Court has not made it mandatory nationwide.

2.Why is this rule  being debated?
Supporters say that it ensures maturity while the critics are of the view that it blocks fresh talent and delays their careers unnecessarily.

3.What did the Supreme Court say earlier?
In the year 1991 it supported the rule and in 2002 it reversed this rule, opening gateway for fresh graduates to apply.

4.What are the suggested alternatives?
Judicial training, apprenticeship, probation and better screening in examinations have been proposed.

5.What do other countries do?
Countries like Germany and Singapore allow judicial training post-graduation. Other countries like the United Kingdom, requires legal practice before getting appointed.

Conclusion

The impending judgement of the Supreme Court is going to set a president that will impact the future of judicial appointments in India. It will balance the need for experienced judges with the ultimate goal of creating and inclusive and diverse judiciary. However, this issue still remains as complex challenge. The stakeholders are awaiting the decision which will shape The India’s judicial recruitment landscape for the coming years.

To ensure a long-term judicial excellence, India might benefit from considering a hybrid model which incorporates both experience and structured training programs. By introducing apprenticeship programs and membership under sit judges or necessary judicial academics post, the selection process can help in bridging the distance between the academic merit and practical readiness. This balanced approach will open doors for many brilliant young minds while it will also maintain the quality and integrity of the judicial system. Rather than being focused, only on years and years of practice, the focal point should shift towards competence, preparedness, and temperament-These are the qualities that can be nurtured through various ways. A true judicial reformation lies in broadening the spectrum of opportunity without having to compromise on the capability of aspiring young minds.