Latest news with #AIJS
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The 3-year rule: a setback to judiciary aspirants
There has been growing anxiety for months around the anticipation of a verdict from the Supreme Court (SC) that would bring back a rule wherein an advocate would need three years of practice in order to become eligible to write the judicial services examinations. And now, on May 20, a three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, which also included Justices A.G. Masih and K.V. Chandran, has made practical experience of three years a pre-requisite to appear for the subordinate judicial services exam. The judgment has substantiated the hypothesis that the SC has been consistently inconsistent on this issue. No empirical evidence was presented to the court about the 'lower quality' of fresh graduates (para 57), and neither was the number of fresh graduates who qualified for judicial services within a year of their graduation given in the judgment. The court simply went back to the three-year rule because majority of the High Courts advocated for it. History of the rule This matter has taken multiple twists since it was addressed in the 14th Law Commission of India (LCI) report in 1958, chaired by M.C. Setalvad. The Commission contended that persons with experience ranging from three to five years shall be eligible to compete in the examinations for lower subordinate judge in every State. This exam was to have questions of practical aspect and would not depend upon rote memorisation alone. Ability to draft pleadings, appreciate evidence and write judgments were also to be tested. Unfortunately, current question papers of most judicial services exams continue to test rote memory only. For higher judiciary, an All India Judicial Services (AIJS), a centralised recruitment system for judges, was proposed. The Commission report was of the opinion that it was necessary to tap brilliant university graduates at the right time to judicial services. Therefore, the AIJS required no practical experience. Anyone holding a law degree, ranging from 21-25 years of age would be eligible, and practical experience was to be developed through a 'carefully devised scheme of training' which includes practical working in the courts. The exam was to be conducted at the National level. That is, the report contended for two different sets of eligibility criteria for recruitment at the State-level (lower subordinate judge exams) and at the national level (AIJS). In the All India Judges' Association versus Union of India, 1992, the question of 'uniformity' in service conditions of judges across India was taken up. The judgment endorsed the LCI Report and its provisions on AIJS including the recommendation to allow fresh law graduates to compete in the exam. The top court issued directions to the Union of India to set up the AIJS. However, a review petition of the Judges' Association case, filed in 1993, held that a minimum legal practice of three years was essential to qualify for the subordinate judicial services examination. The court in All India Judges' Assn. (II) versus Union of India, (1993) held 'in most of the States, the minimum qualifications for being eligible to the post of the Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class/Magistrate First Class/Munsiff Magistrate is minimum three years' practice as a lawyer in addition to the degree in law. In some States, however, the requirement of practice is altogether dispensed with and judicial officers are recruited with only a degree in law to their credit. The recruitment of raw graduates as judicial officers without any training or background of lawyering has not proved to be a successful experiment. Considering the fact that from the first day of his assuming office, the Judge has to decide, among others, questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants, to induct graduates fresh from the Universities to occupy seats of such vital powers is neither prudent nor desirable.' The court went on to observe, 'the experience as a lawyer is, therefore, essential to enable the Judge to discharge his duties and functions efficiently …' The court thus gave a strong order, 'We, therefore, direct that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years' practice as a lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as the judicial officer at the lowest rung.' Attracting talent The Justice Shetty Commission, set up in 1996, found that while almost all States had complied with the three-year rule, some States had gone beyond and prescribed more than three years as minimum qualification. The report also stated that advocates with 4-7 years of experience were getting selected only at the age of 27 to 30. Therefore, in the All India Judges' Association versus Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the three-year-rule had failed to attract the best talent to judicial services, and scrapped the rule. The court was candid in admitting that, 'with the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after 3 years of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with…' Now, the Supreme Court has again gone back to the three year rule, as the crucial question of how to balance attracting the best talent along with the necessary skills is still valid. For that one must understand ground realities. No one can deny that the best law students today are in National Law Universities. Most of these students get lucrative corporate placements with huge pay packages. Many of them also need to repay education loans as almost all law universities' five-year fee ranges between ₹12-₹15 lakh. Reputed private law schools charge even more, between ₹20-₹40 lakh. The SC yet again hopes that three years' of practice may help future judges in addressing courtroom decorum, complex procedural cases and in understanding the perspectives of all stakeholders of the judicial system. Young candidates are said to lack maturity, empathy and patience. The reality is, however, that most candidates wishing to practice don't see judicial services as a career option, while those who wish to enter judicial services rarely see practice as a career option. Most States find it difficult to fill vacancies of the higher judicial services due to the poor performance of candidates in the written examinations. Recently, Rajasthan notified that not a single candidate was found suitable. The fact of the matter is that the mandatory three-years of practice rule will significantly discourage brighter minds from joining the judicial services. Economically backward and SC/ST/OBC candidates would be the worst hit, as they cannot afford to wait. It becomes necessary for them to start earning. These candidates would be keen to write examinations to enter civil services, public sector undertakings (PSUs), or even join academia. Various challenges The Bar Council of India has encouraged senior advocates and firms to pay a minimum of ₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban centres to junior lawyers. This bare minimum stipend is not enough for a law student having no connections in the field. Non-matriculants in Delhi are paid ₹20,371 a month for clerical work or supervisory work in scheduled employment. An unskilled worker is paid ₹18, 456 a month as per the minimum Wages Act. Only financially sound candidates would have the luxury to appear for judicial services if the three year condition is brought back. Additionally, as per the India Justice Report, women account for 38% of the judges in district judiciary. Nine out of the top 10 candidates from the recently held Bihar judicial services exam were female candidates. Now, if the three-year rule is implemented, a number of these women, going through career breaks or maternity leaves, will suffer a setback. Another problem is with regard to age. To appear for the civil services examinations, the minimum eligibility criteria is to be a final year student of a three-year degree programme. But for the judicial services examination, five-six years of education together with three years of experience would make them highly financially vulnerable as well as older compared to their counterparts in the civil services. This classification would neither be based on intelligible differentia nor achieve the rational object of attracting the best minds. Moreover, unlike the civil services, the judicial services exam in most States is not held at regular intervals. Even if a candidate has fulfilled the three year criteria, he/she has to wait for another few years for the exam to be advertised. What can be done? The solution is to catch young talent and enhance the training period to two years or more and use the best of academic and practical skills to enhance efficiency of the lower rung of the judiciary. Trainee officers may be required to serve as probationers to serving District and Sessions Judge or Justices of the High Court to enhance their understanding of the courtroom. For six months, they may be attached to senior lawyers as well. We must also reform the examination and come up with innovative questions. The examination should be based on scenario-based questions, and judgment writing should carry more weightage. Excluding fresh talent may do more harm than good to our judicial system. Faizan Mustafa is Vice-Chancellor, Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Shrey Shalin is an is LL.M. candidate at National Law University, Delhi. Views expressed are personal.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Justice Chavan Calls For National Judicial Service, Reforms To Address Vacancies In Judiciary
Nagpur: Amid mounting concerns over the shortage of judges and the growing backlog of over 5 crore cases across Indian, former Bombay high court judge and Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission chairman Ravindra Chavan has recommended a series of urgent reforms to overhaul judicial recruitment and training. His proposals appear in a chapter titled 'Human Resource (mis)management in the Judiciary', part of the recently published book 'Shaping the Judges'. Chavan has stressed on the need for a coordinated, national-level framework for appointments by establishing an All India Judicial Service (AIJS), modelled on the UPSC. More than 4,800 posts in the subordinate judiciary are lying vacant despite enhanced sanctioned strength. Chavan attributed the stagnation to decentralised and inconsistent recruitment practices across states. A centralised AIJS, he argued, would streamline appointments, attract capable candidates, and uphold uniformity and transparency. He further pointed to the judiciary's lack of diversity, highlighting the inadequate representation of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. To address this imbalance, Chavan advocated expanding reservation quotas and introducing support systems to improve accessibility for under-represented communities. Despite formal provisions, he noted that many reserved positions remain vacant due to systemic gaps and procedural hurdles. Another key focus of his recommendations is modernising legal education. He emphasised the need to prepare future judges for emerging legal challenges by incorporating artificial intelligence, data analytics, and forensic science into law curricula. He also suggested that judicial service orientation begin at the undergraduate level to foster early interest and readiness. "Law universities must evolve to match the demands of a data-driven justice system," he told TOI, adding that technological competence should be treated as essential to judicial effectiveness. Chavan also raised concerns over the bureaucratic inertia and delays in the appointment process. He called upon high courts and state govts to ensure faster, transparent, and independent recruitment mechanisms free from political or administrative influence. According to him, an accountable, time-bound recruitment process would not only address vacancies but also help restore public confidence in the judicial system. His intervention comes at a time when institutional delays and inefficiencies are drawing criticism for hampering access to justice. The measures he proposes aim to create a judicial system that is inclusive, responsive, and equipped for the future. Nagpur: Amid mounting concerns over the shortage of judges and the growing backlog of over 5 crore cases across Indian, former Bombay high court judge and Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission chairman Ravindra Chavan has recommended a series of urgent reforms to overhaul judicial recruitment and training. His proposals appear in a chapter titled 'Human Resource (mis)management in the Judiciary', part of the recently published book 'Shaping the Judges'. Chavan has stressed on the need for a coordinated, national-level framework for appointments by establishing an All India Judicial Service (AIJS), modelled on the UPSC. More than 4,800 posts in the subordinate judiciary are lying vacant despite enhanced sanctioned strength. Chavan attributed the stagnation to decentralised and inconsistent recruitment practices across states. A centralised AIJS, he argued, would streamline appointments, attract capable candidates, and uphold uniformity and transparency. He further pointed to the judiciary's lack of diversity, highlighting the inadequate representation of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. To address this imbalance, Chavan advocated expanding reservation quotas and introducing support systems to improve accessibility for under-represented communities. Despite formal provisions, he noted that many reserved positions remain vacant due to systemic gaps and procedural hurdles. Another key focus of his recommendations is modernising legal education. He emphasised the need to prepare future judges for emerging legal challenges by incorporating artificial intelligence, data analytics, and forensic science into law curricula. He also suggested that judicial service orientation begin at the undergraduate level to foster early interest and readiness. "Law universities must evolve to match the demands of a data-driven justice system," he told TOI, adding that technological competence should be treated as essential to judicial effectiveness. Chavan also raised concerns over the bureaucratic inertia and delays in the appointment process. He called upon high courts and state govts to ensure faster, transparent, and independent recruitment mechanisms free from political or administrative influence. According to him, an accountable, time-bound recruitment process would not only address vacancies but also help restore public confidence in the judicial system. His intervention comes at a time when institutional delays and inefficiencies are drawing criticism for hampering access to justice. The measures he proposes aim to create a judicial system that is inclusive, responsive, and equipped for the future.
