Arguments in Support of the Mandate (Prashant Reddy’s perspective):
- Step in the right direction: Practical experience fosters maturity essential for judicial duties.
- High Court consensus: 21 out of 23 High Courts found young law graduates unsuitable as judges.
- Bar Council support: In 2021, the BCI criticized judges without Bar experience as “inept.”
- Limitations of training: Judicial academies cannot replicate real-world courtroom exposure.
- Emotional maturity matters: Lived experiences and age contribute to better judicial decision-making.
- Gender representation: Reservations for women may still preserve judicial service appeal.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)
Arguments Against the Mandate (Bharat Chugh’s perspective):
- Minimal learning in 3 years: Short practice duration does not ensure deeper legal understanding.
- Lack of empirical evidence: Verdict isn’t backed by comprehensive data or research.
- Judicial service unattractive: Mid-career shift to judiciary (age 29–30) less appealing due to poor incentives.
- Accessibility barrier: Marginalised and first-generation lawyers may struggle to sustain 3 years of litigation.
- Women disproportionately impacted: Family pressure and financial barriers make litigation tougher for women.
- Entry-level hurdle: Requirement may drive away promising candidates from less elite institutions.
Practical Challenges:
- No objective metric for experience: Risks becoming a mere checkbox formality.
- Lack of clarity: Unclear how non-litigating legal roles (e.g., corporate, PSU lawyers) will be assessed.
- Documentation issues: Need for a structured, verifiable system like digital appearance logs.
- Disconnect from practice: Young lawyers often perform menial tasks, not substantive advocacy.
Constitutional & Policy Concerns:
- Judicial overreach: Supreme Court’s intervention violates Article 234, which vests eligibility criteria-setting with the executive and High Courts.
- Courtroom policymaking: Reform made without public consultation or stakeholder involvement.
- Need for data-driven reform: No assessment of whether advocacy experience correlates with better judicial performance.
Broader Implications:
- Shrinking talent pool: Raising the qualifying age and practice requirement may reduce applications.
- Impact on diversity: Could dilute recent gains in gender and social representation in judiciary.
- Missed opportunity for reform: Without broader improvements (pay, working conditions, exam delays), mandate alone won’t enhance judiciary quality.
