Supreme Court reintroduces three-year mandatory practice for lawyers to enter judicial service

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reintroduced the mandatory three-year practice for lawyers to enter the judicial service.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed all state governments to amend the rules ensuring that for any candidate appearing for civil judges (junior division) exam shall have a minimum practice of three years.

The same should be certified and endorsed by a lawyer having standing of 10 years at the Bar. Experience as a law clerk to judges shall also be counted in this regard. The judicial service entrants must undergo a year of training before presiding in a court, it added.

The Bench, however, clarified that the minimum practice requirement should not be applicable where the High Courts have already commenced the appointment process of civil judges (junior division). It would be applicable only when the next appointment process began.

The top court of the country observed that the appointment of fresh law graduates as judges had led to a lot of problems. Inexperienced law graduates may not be adequately equipped to handle the important tasks entrusted to judicial officers, it added.

The Bench said since the very day they assumed service, the judges dealt with different matters related to liberty, property and life. It could not be answered only by knowledge of books, but by assisting seniors during legal practice, understanding Court.

The Apex Court held that the three years of legal practice could be counted from the date on which a law graduate started practice on the basis of a provisional enrolment and not from the date on which a lawyer cleared the All India Bar Exam (AIBE).

Whether or not a candidate had three years of legal practice was to be certified by an advocate with 10 years of standing at the Bar, it said, adding that a candidate’s experience as a law clerk to a judge could be counted towards legal practice.

The Court held that all such recruitment processes which were kept in abeyance due to the pendency of this case shall proceed now in accordance with the amended rules as notified.