Latest news with #RajuKumar
Indian Express
2 days 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
Time of India
24-05-2025
- Time of India
Govt college prof asks studentto ‘undress on video call', held
Agra: A govt college professor in UP was arrested after he allegedly asked a female student to "undress on video call and threatened to fail her if she resisted his advances". A case under BNS section of "sexual harassment" has been registered against him, police said. The incident came to light in Muzaffarnagar on Saturday when the 24-year-old student of BSc final-year arrived at the college with her family and some members of Jat Mahasabha, a social group. The student also reportedly approached a Haryanvi actor, who is a local resident. After staging a protest on the campus, they demanded strict action against the professor. DSP (city) Raju Kumar said, "We received a complaint from the student and after a preliminary investigation, the accused professor was taken into custody. A case has been registered under BNS section 75 (2) (sexual harassment), among others, and further investigation is on." The student alleged that the professor was harassing her for a long time through late night calls and obscene messages. "He used to call me around midnight and ask me to undress on video calls. When I refused, he would threaten to fail me in practical exams or delay my results. I was scared but finally decided to speak up," she added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Esta nueva alarma con cámara es casi regalada en 9 De Julio (ver precio) Verisure Más información Undo The student also claimed to have voice recordings as "evidence of the professor's misconduct". The college principal confirmed that they have received a complaint from the student and subsequently set up an internal inquiry committee. "The student did not contact any official before this. Now that we've received a formal complaint with supporting evidence, we will proceed with an internal investigation as per the university rules," the principal said. Meanwhile, district president of Jat Mahasabha, Dharmveer Balyan, said they have given the local authorities "two days' time" for strict action against the accused, and threatened further protests if this didn't happen.
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
Muzaffarnagar prof held after student alleges sexual harassment
A final-year BSc student of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram Degree College in Muzaffarnagar has accused a faculty member of Plant Pathology of persistent sexual harassment, leading to his arrest on Saturday and sparking protests led by the Jat Mahasabha. In her complaint, the student, a resident of Shamli, alleged that professor Dushyant Kumar had been calling her late at night, making lewd remarks, and coercing her during video calls. She further stated that he threatened to sabotage her academic performance when she refused to comply. 'Professor Dushyant Kumar used to call me at night and speak obscenely. He pressured me to undress during video calls. When I did not respond, he threatened to fail me in practicals. I have recordings and screenshots as evidence,' the student said. The incident came to light when the student approached her family and members of the Jat Mahasabha. A protest broke out at the college following her complaint, which led to police intervention. Deputy superintendent of police Raju Kumar confirmed that Professor Kumar had been taken into custody. 'A case has been registered under BNS sections 75(2) for sexual harassment and 352(1) for intentional insult aimed at provoking a breach of peace. The investigation is ongoing,' he said. The student said she had initially chosen to remain silent in hopes of completing her studies. 'I kept thinking this is my final year and I should just get through it. But his behaviour kept escalating,' she said. District president of the Jat Mahasabha, Dharmveer Balyan, warned of further protests if swift action was not taken. 'If strict action is not initiated within two days, we will protest at the SSP office. Such individuals should receive the strictest punishment to deter future offences,' he said. College Principal KP Singh confirmed that the student had filed a complaint via the women's helpline on May 21. 'We were informed and have formed an internal inquiry committee. The professor has given his statement at the women's police station. The matter will be handled as per university norms,' he said.
Hindustan Times
08-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana: Bihar resident held in drug case, 1kg heroin seized
The crime branch of Police Commissionerate Ludhiana arrested a man for drug peddling and recovered 1.05 kg heroin. The police also seized his bike. The accused has been identified as Pardeep Kumar of Bihar, who is currently living in Moti Nagar in rented accommodation. Following the information provided by the accused the police booked his aide Raju Kumar alias Raju of Deep Nagar of Sherpur. Inspector Beant Juneja, Incharge at Crime Branch, stated that the police arrested the accused from GLADA Ground at Chandigarh Road following a tip-off when he was going to supply the consignment. When frisked, the police recovered 1.05 kg heroin from his possession. During questioning, the accused told police that he used to procure heroin from Raju Kumar alias Raju following which the police booked the latter too. A case under sections 21, 29, 61 and 85 of NDPS act has been lodged against the accused at Moti Nagar Police station. The Inspector added that Raju Singh is already facing trial in five cases of drug peddling and liquor smuggling, while Pardeep Kumar has no past criminal record. Further he added that a hunt is on for the arrest of Raju Singh.
