Supreme Court's Ruling on Judicial Services Examination Eligibility
The Supreme Court of India has reinstated a rule requiring advocates to have three years of practice before they can appear for the subordinate judicial services exam. This decision, led by a three-judge bench including Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, aligns with the majority view of High Courts advocating for practical experience.
Historical Context and Law Commission's Stand
- The 1958 Law Commission of India report recommended that candidates for lower subordinate judge exams should have 3-5 years of legal experience.
- It proposed an All India Judicial Services (AIJS) exam without practical experience requirements, relying instead on structured training.
Previous Supreme Court Judgments
- In 1992, the Supreme Court endorsed the AIJS and allowed fresh graduates to sit for the exams.
- A 1993 review necessitated a minimum of three years of legal practice for the subordinate judicial services examination.
- The Justice Shetty Commission found in 1996 that most states adhered to this rule, with some requiring even more experience.
- In 2002, the Supreme Court accepted that the rule did not attract the best talent and scrapped it.
Current Concerns and Impacts
- The reinstated rule aims to improve courtroom skills and maturity among judges.
- It may deter talented individuals from entering judicial services, particularly those from economically weaker sections who cannot afford to wait for three years.
- Women and candidates with career breaks may face additional setbacks due to the experience requirement.
- The discrepancy in age and financial vulnerability between candidates for judicial services and those for civil services could widen.
Proposed Solutions
- Extend training periods to enhance both academic and practical skills for new entrants.
- Introduce role-based and judgment-writing-focused exams to better assess candidates' abilities.
- Align trainee officers with senior legal professionals to gain practical insights.
The need to balance attracting young talent with ensuring the capability and preparedness of future judges. Their views suggest innovation in training and examination processes rather than strict adherence to experience requirements.
