"All High Courts and State Governments shall amend the service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have a practice of a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for said examination," held the Supreme Court while reinstating the condition of a mandated minimum practice of three years for advocates to apply for entry-level posts in Judicial Services.

The bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran also added that such a period of legal practice may be counted from the date of provisional enrollment. However, this requirement will not affect recruitment processes that were already started by the High Courts before today. In other words, it will be applicable only to recruitment processes initiated in the future. "The said requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable where the concerned High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of civil judge and shall be applicable for next recruitment process”

To meet this requirement, the candidate must obtain a certificate that is either issued by the Principal Judicial Officer of the relevant court or by an advocate with at least ten years of standing, provided it is duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of that district or station. For individuals practicing before the Supreme Court or a High Court, a certificate from an advocate with a minimum of ten years' standing, endorsed by an officer authorized by the respective Court, shall serve as valid proof.

It is important to note that the experience of the candidate, which they have gained working as Law Clerks with any of the judges or judicial officers of the country, will also be considered while calculating the total number of years of practice.

Such a ruling arises out of the observation of the problems caused by allowing fresh graduates to judicial service without a single day of practice.

The bench was of the opinion that over the past 20 years, the recruitment of fresh law graduates as judicial officers without any prior practice at the Bar had not been a successful experience. It was noted that such appointments had led to several problems. From the very first day in office, judges are required to deal with matters concerning life, liberty, property, and the reputation of litigants. It was emphasized that neither theoretical knowledge acquired from law books nor pre-service training could adequately substitute for the practical experience gained through direct exposure to the functioning of courts and the administration of justice. Such experience was considered essential for understanding how lawyers and judges operate within the courtroom. Therefore, it was agreed, in line with the views of most High Courts, that introducing a mandatory requirement of a certain number of years of practice was necessary.

Source: NEWS