Supreme Court Decision on Judicial Appointments
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court reinstated a rule mandating a minimum of 3 years’ experience as practising lawyers for candidates applying for judicial magistrate and civil judge posts. This decision reverses the 2002 judgment that scrapped the rule, which itself had overruled a 1993 verdict requiring this experience.
Background and Justification
- The 2002 abolition of the practice requirement was due to young lawyers, aged 21-27, being appointed without courtroom experience.
- Most of these appointees belonged to upper-caste, upper-middle-class backgrounds with limited exposure to real-world challenges.
- This led to numerous complaints against these judges, prompting some states to reintroduce the practice requirement.
Critique of the Recent Judgment
- The Supreme Court's recent decision lacks solid reasoning or empirical evidence, relying on subjective high court opinions.
- The 3-year practice requirement is criticized as too short to gain meaningful legal experience.
Comparison with Higher Judicial Appointments
- The Constitution mandates a minimum of 10 years of practice for higher court judgeship applications, with most appointees having over 20 years of experience.
- District judges generally require at least 7 years of practice, with examples like Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka averaging 44 and 50 years of age at appointment, respectively.
Concerns Over Hierarchical Discrepancies
The judgment raises questions about differing practice requirements within the judicial hierarchy. The skills needed by judicial magistrates and civil judges are deemed equivalent to those required by district judges.
International Comparison
- In countries like the US, magistrate judges typically have an average of 23 years of experience and are appointed at around age 50.
Conclusion: Policy vs. Law
The case highlights that practice requirements for district judiciary judges are policy issues rather than legal ones. The Supreme Court's decision is criticized for overstepping the federal constitutional mandate, which assigns this policy decision to state governments.