{"id":46863,"date":"2025-05-21T14:40:54","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T09:10:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=46863"},"modified":"2025-05-21T16:41:35","modified_gmt":"2025-05-21T11:11:35","slug":"supreme-court-reinstates-three-year-practice-rule-for-judicial-services","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/supreme-court-reinstates-three-year-practice-rule-for-judicial-services\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Reinstates Three-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Services"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Judicial Services Latest News<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The Supreme Court has reinstated the three-year minimum practice requirement for law graduates to apply for positions in the judicial services.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Introduction<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>In a significant shift in judicial recruitment policy, the\u00a0<strong>Supreme Court of India has reinstated the requirement of three years of minimum legal practice for aspirants seeking entry into the subordinate judiciary<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The May 20, 2025 verdict, delivered by a bench led by\u00a0<strong>Chief Justice B.R. Gavai<\/strong>, aims to enhance the efficiency and competence of judicial officers through practical legal exposure before assuming judicial responsibilities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Background and History of the Rule<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The idea of requiring prior legal practice for judicial services dates back to the\u00a0<strong>14th Law Commission Report (1958)<\/strong>, which proposed 3-5 years of courtroom experience for civil judge aspirants.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>However, in 2002, this rule was scrapped following the recommendations of the\u00a0<strong>Justice Shetty Commission<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The rationale was that the best talent was not joining the judiciary, as fresh graduates preferred more lucrative private sector roles after gaining experience.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The court had then endorsed that a robust training mechanism could make up for the lack of courtroom experience.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Supreme Court\u2019s Rationale for Reinstating the Rule<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>In its latest verdict, the\u00a0<strong>Supreme Court emphasized that neither academic knowledge nor pre-service training could be a substitute for first-hand exposure to the court system<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The judgment stated that young judges, from their first day in office, handle issues of life, liberty, and property, matters requiring maturity and an understanding of courtroom dynamics.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The court said that\u00a0<strong>past recruitment of fresh graduates had \u201cnot been a successful experience,\u201d and many High Courts also supported reinstating the rule<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Key directives included:<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>A\u00a0<strong>three-year minimum practice<\/strong>\u00a0to be certified by a senior advocate (10+ years).<\/li>\n<li>Law clerk experience will also be considered valid.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Mandatory one-yeartraining<\/strong>\u00a0before posting.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Criticisms and Concerns Raised<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Despite the court&#8217;s emphasis on experiential learning, critics argue that the move could restrict access to judicial careers, especially for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and women.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Key Concerns:<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Economic Barrier:<\/strong>\u00a0Junior lawyers in India are often underpaid. With stipends ranging from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000\/month, many law graduates, especially from rural or marginalised communities, may not be able to afford three years of low-income work.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Gender Impact:<\/strong>\u00a0The\u00a0<strong>India Justice Report 2022<\/strong>\u00a0noted that women comprise 38% of district judiciary judges. The new rule could deter female aspirants, especially those taking career breaks due to maternity.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Lack of Exam Regularity:<\/strong>\u00a0Judicial exams are not held at regular intervals in many states. Even after fulfilling the practice requirement, aspirants may have to wait years for the next vacancy notification.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Deterrent to Top Talent:<\/strong>\u00a0Students from premier law schools often pursue corporate law due to better pay and career prospects. A lengthy, uncertain pathway may further dissuade top performers from considering judicial careers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>A Case for Reform Instead of Restriction<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Legal scholars argue that a more effective solution would be to strengthen judicial training rather than bar fresh graduates. Proposals include:\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Extended Training Period:<\/strong>\u00a0Enhancing pre-service training to two years, involving mentorship under senior judges and courtroom simulation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Exam Reform:<\/strong>\u00a0Moving away from rote memorization toward scenario-based questions and judgment writing.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Staggered Entry Pathways:<\/strong>\u00a0Introducing a dual-track system, one for experienced advocates and another for young graduates with intensive training components.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>The Way Forward<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>While the SC\u2019s decision is rooted in the intent to raise the quality of judicial service, it raises serious questions about inclusivity and talent retention.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>A better approach may involve a balance, preserving the court\u2019s need for experience while creating training-heavy entry routes for exceptional fresh graduates.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>India\u2019s judicial recruitment system, in its current form, must be reformed to attract and prepare the best talent rather than filter them out.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Judicial Services FAQs<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Q1.<\/strong>\u00a0What change has the Supreme Court made to judicial service eligibility?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong>\u00a0The Supreme Court reinstated the requirement of three years of legal practice for applying to judicial services.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.\u00a0<\/strong>Why was the three-year practice rule reintroduced?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong>\u00a0The court cited the lack of courtroom experience among fresh graduates and the need for practical exposure to ensure judicial competence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.\u00a0<\/strong>Who will certify the three years of legal practice?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong>\u00a0A senior advocate with at least ten years of practice will have to endorse the candidate&#8217;s experience.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.\u00a0<\/strong>How might this rule affect economically weaker candidates?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong>\u00a0It could deter them due to low stipends and delayed job entry, making the path financially unsustainable.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.\u00a0<\/strong>What are experts recommending as an alternative to this rule?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong>\u00a0Suggestions include extending training for fresh graduates, reforming judicial exams, and offering structured mentorships.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source:\u00a0<\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/3-year-rule-a-setback-to-judiciary-aspirants\/article69597321.ece#:~:text=The%20fact%20of%20the%20matter,for%20them%20to%20start%20earning.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">TH<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/india\/fresh-law-grads-not-appear-judicial-services-exam-sc-10016974\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court restores 3-year practice rule for judicial exams, stressing courtroom experience; sparks debate on youth impact and judicial efficiency.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":46860,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[60,330,22,59],"class_list":{"0":"post-46863","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"tag-mains-articles","9":"tag-three-year-practice-rule-for-judicial-services","10":"tag-upsc-current-affairs","11":"tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","12":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46863","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46863\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/46860"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}