The Supreme Court on Tuesday
reinstated the condition requiring a minimum of three years of legal practice
to apply for entry-level judicial posts.
A bench led by Chief
Justice of India, along with Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, delivered
the judgment in the All India Judges Association case. The court held that
legal experience is essential for the efficient functioning of the judiciary.
Practical experience
essential
The court held that the
three-year practice period may begin from the date of provisional enrolment as
an advocate. A certificate from a lawyer with a minimum of 10 years of
standing, countersigned by a judicial officer from the relevant jurisdiction,
will be accepted as proof of practice.
For
those practising at the Supreme Court or a high court, an endorsement from a
similarly experienced advocate, attested by a designated court officer, will
suffice.
The
court had reserved its judgment on January 28, 2025, after staying a
recruitment process by the Gujarat High Court that did not include the
experience requirement. During the proceedings, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate
Siddharth Bhatnagar raised concerns over the lack of practical exposure among
fresh graduates.
The bench expressed similar apprehensions,
highlighting how some aspirants may nominally sign vakalaths, a legal document
that authorises an advocate to represent a party in court proceedings, without
engaging in actual legal practice.
2002 ruling
overturned
This ruling overturns the
relaxation introduced in 2002, which had allowed fresh law graduates to compete
for Munsiff-Magistrate posts.
The 2002 judgment followed the
recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which noted the judiciary’s struggle
to attract top legal talent and believed the three-year experience clause to be
a deterrent. At the time, it had instead recommended robust training for fresh
recruits, proposing a minimum one-year, ideally two-year, induction programme.