The Supreme Court on Tuesday barred fresh law graduates from appearing in entry level judicial services examination, fixing a minimum three-year law practice criteria.

The top court also increased from 10 to 25 percent the quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to higher judicial service or the cadre of district judge.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran analysed the procedures related to filling of vacancies in higher judicial services and said raising the LDCE quota would have “no adverse impact on the administration of justice”.

While 25 per cent posts in higher judiciary are filled by direct recruitment from the bar, 50 per cent of the total posts are filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority.

In the LDCE, the merit is the only criteria and judicial officers can become ADJs by clearing this irrespective of their experience or the seniority.

“All high courts and the state governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that the quota of reservation for LDCE for promotion from the cadre of civil judge (senior division) to the higher judicial service is increased to 25 percent,” the bench said.

The bench added, “Needless to state that all such recruitment processes which have been kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with the rules which were applicable on the date of advertisement/notification.”

The verdict came on a plea filed by the All India Judges Association.

Writing the 63-page judgement for the bench, the CJI dealt with the prerequisites for those aspiring to enter the subordinate judiciary and reaffirmed the importance of courtroom exposure for prospective judges.

“All the high courts and the state governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of civil judge (junior division) must have practised for a minimum period of three years to be eligible for the said examination,” it said.

The court said the experience of judicial service aspirants would be counted from the date on which provisional registration had been granted by the state bar council concerned.

“The said requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the high court concerned has already initiated the selection process for the post of civil judge (junior division) prior to the date of this judgment and shall be applicable only from the next recruitment process,” it said.

The verdict clarified that the experience of the candidates who were working as law clerks with judges or judicial officers would also be considered while calculating their total number of years of practice.

Candidates practising before the high courts or the apex court, the bench said, would be certified by an advocate having a standing of 10 years, duly endorsed by an officer designated by that high court or the Supreme Court.

“The rules shall also mandate that the candidates who are appointed to the post of civil judge (junior division) pursuant to their selection through the examination must compulsorily undergo at least one year of training before presiding in a court,” it said.

Agreeing with the views of several high courts that the reintroduction of a certain number of years of practice was necessary, it said, “The judges from the very day on which they assume office have to deal with the questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of litigants.”

From the affidavits of almost all high courts, the court found evident that the recruitment of fresh law graduates as judicial officers, without a single day of practice at the bar, had not been a “successful experience” and that such graduates, upon their entry in judicial service, started to show “behavioural and temperamental problems”.

The court was conscious that a young law graduate would have “minimal” opportunities, but said exposure to courts, particularly litigants and their briefs, would acquaint them with the “onerous duties and responsibilities” of every stakeholder in the judicial system.

“It would bring in a sensitivity to human problems, more clarity in the decision-making process and educate them on the role of the Bar in justice dispensation,” the bench added.

Also read:

NID Ahmedabad ends agreement with Bangladesh’s media institute