Latest news with #ShettyCommission
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court's 3-year Bar experience rule for judge exam triggers concern among aspirants
Last month's Supreme Court's landmark ruling reinstating the requirement that candidates must have at least three years of litigation experience before they can sit for the judicial service examination for entry-level judgeships has prompted concerns over the challenges it may pose for recent graduates. The court's decision was rooted in the belief that judicial officers must have practical exposure to the courtroom before donning the robe. '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,' the apex court said in the May 20 judgment. It observed that, 'neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court system and the administration of justice. This is possible only when a candidate is exposed to the atmosphere in the court by assisting the seniors and observing how the lawyers and the judges function in the court'. Fundamental rights The ruling has triggered concerns among law graduates and aspirants. A review petition filed by Chandrasen Yadav, a young advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, argues that the mandatory three-year requirement infringes on his fundamental rights. Mr. Yadav submitted that the mandatory three-year practice rule should be implemented only from 2027 onwards to avoid unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023–2025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria. 'Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution,' he said. Another petitioner, Chandra Sharma, who comes from an Army background, highlighted the requirement to obtain a practice certificate from a lawyer with 10 years of standing. 'Lawyers I have worked with had 5–7 years of experience. The new norms will make it more difficult for me to get a certificate,' she said. Pawan, a first-generation lawyer, echoed similar frustrations. 'I started my career under a senior advocate, but I couldn't sustain myself financially. I joined a law firm. Now that experience won't count. Why should I be penalised for taking a corporate job to survive?' Robust training The review petition argues that the apex court has overlooked key aspects of the very report it cited — the Shetty Commission. While the 1999 report had recommended a three-year practice period, it also noted that due to practical court training being integrated into modern legal education, such a requirement may not be necessary if robust training is provided post-selection. It highlighted Clause 8.35 of the Shetty Commission's Recommendations, which explicitly stated that if young and meritorious law graduates are imparted intensive training, it may not be necessary to prescribe three years of practice at the Bar as a precondition for entry into judicial service. Additionally, the review petition contended that the court failed to cite any 'data, statistics, or studies which establish that fresh law graduates perform poorly as judges, or that three years of practice necessarily correlates with better judicial competence and that past recruitments from among freshers have resulted in any systemic inefficiencies or failures'. The review petition, filed through advocate Kunal Yadav, argued that, 'a candidate selected for judicial service is not 'raw,' but one who has undergone a rigorous and multi-tiered selection process comprising a comprehensive preliminary examination, mains examination testing knowledge of substantive and procedural laws, and a final viva-voce conducted by senior judges or experienced legal professionals'. The plea additionally argued that the three-year requirement may discourage women, first-generation lawyers, and economically weaker candidates who may not have the means to sustain an uncertain legal practice before securing a stable judicial post.
Scroll.in
04-06-2025
- General
- Scroll.in
Making law practice a condition for civil judge candidates will hurt India's justice system
In the latest twist in a back-and-forth that has been ongoing for over 30 years, the Supreme Court of India on May 20 reinstated the requirement that candidates for the civil judge (junior division) examination should have practised law for three years. This judgement threatens to drive a significant pool of talent away from judicial service, making it an unattractive career path for many law graduates. Civil judge (junior division) is the entry-level position in the district judiciary. Until now, fresh law graduates could directly appear for the judicial service examinations. The judgement changes that position: aspirants must now practice law for at least three years before even applying for the recruitment process. Far from being a new debate, this ruling is merely the latest in a series of decisions stemming from a case that has been going on since 1989. A brief legal history After Independence, states followed divergent practices in prescribing qualifications for civil judges. Some required only a law degree, while others mandated at least three years of legal practice. In 1993, the Supreme Court felt that in view of the uniformity in hierarchy, designation and service conditions among judges, there should be uniformity in their qualifications and the recruitment procedure as well. The court was of the view that neither bookish knowledge nor training could be an adequate substitute for first-hand courtroom experience. Based on that rationale, a nationwide minimum period of three years of legal practice was mandated. But in 2002, the Supreme Court did a volte face and abolished the requirement, relying on the recommendations of the Shetty Commission that had been established to study the service conditions and salary structures of judicial officers. The commission had reasoned that doing so would attract bright young law graduates from the recently established national law schools, who otherwise preferred high paying jobs in multinationals and law firms over 'struggling' as lawyers for three years. In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court reinstated the minimum practice requirement on identical grounds as its 1993 judgment. It reiterates that fresh law graduates are not 'steeped into the culture, etiquette, temper, and conduct of the court proceedings'. However, the court in its analysis completely ignores the rationale of its own 2002 decision passed in the same case. A barrier, not a filter The three-year moratorium is nothing less than a death knell for the aspirations of many judicial candidates. Legal practice in India is fraught with economic, structural and cultural challenges. For law graduates from economically weaker backgrounds, jobs in litigation are a route best avoided. Junior lawyers are often paid extremely low stipends and rely on family support even for sustenance. The profession justifies this by claiming, 'in litigation, your learning is your earning'. Besides, the current format of judicial recruitment examinations assesses a candidate's ability to memorise and reproduce legal provisions. They test neither the skills required of a practicing lawyer nor those essential for a judge. The exam neither rewards practical experience nor requires it. Lastly, unlike the Supreme Court's reasoning, which seems to go in circles, legal education has evolved in a gradual but progressive manner. At the time of the 1993 judgment, the LLB or Bachelor's in Law programme took two years. Today, law degrees are five-year programmes with mandatory internships, simulated courts, legal aid clinics and academic research. Today's graduates are far better prepared than their predecessors to engage with the justice system. If India is still not producing desirable candidates despite this legal education system and rigorous competitive examination process, for which millions of candidates appear, perhaps the problem lies in the examination process. The answer cannot be to reintroduce a practice requirement that functions as little more than a trial by fire. What is also telling is how little public discussion the judgement has attracted. This silence is symptomatic of a broader trend: while op-eds and editorials routinely dissect developments concerning the Supreme Court and High Courts, the district judiciary rarely features in national discourse. But district courts are the first line of defence of India's justice delivery system. The lower judiciary is not any lower in importance.
Time of India
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC forms panel to address court employees' grievances
1 2 Buxar: The Patna high court on Saturday constituted a high-level committee to address the grievances of court employees across the state. Earlier this year, court employees went on strike, paralysing the functioning of lower courts throughout Bihar, demanding upgraded pay and promotional scales, time-bound promotions and appointments on compassionate grounds. President of the Bihar State Civil Court Employees' Association , Rajeshwar Tiwari, said on Saturday that the union had received a letter from the Patna high court in this regard. "A full-fledged committee, comprising Justice P B Bajanthri , Justice Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, Justice Parth Sarathy, the registrar general, registrar (administration), registrar (vigilance), the law secretary and finance secretary of the state govt, along with two office-bearers of the union, has been constituted to address the employees' grievances in the subordinate courts across the state," Tiwari said. He added that the standing committee of the Patna high court had recommended granting a graduate pay scale to court employees who hold a graduation qualification for the posts they occupy, as well as the implementation of the Shetty Commission report, which proposed one additional increment effective from April 1, 2003. Tiwari said almost all court employees are retiring without receiving any promotion or pay revision. Criticising the Patna high court's stance on compassionate appointments, he said, "In every judgeship, dependents of deceased employees are running from pillar to post for such appointments in the advent of the no-family-pension era, but the high court has taken a cruel stand on compassionate grounds." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Google Brain Co-Founder Andrew Ng, Recommends: Read These 5 Books And Turn Your Life Around Blinkist: Andrew Ng's Reading List Undo Highlighting longstanding issues, Tiwari said, "Court employees have been working with bitter pay disparity and dwindling promotion opportunities for the last 20 years and deeper resentment has been prevailing among staff, who are working on multiple posts in the courts."
