What Did the Supreme Court Rule?
- On May 20, the SC reinstated the rule requiring a minimum of 3 years litigation experience before a candidate can take the judicial service examination for entry-level judges.
- Rationale: First-hand court experience is essential for judicial officers who deal with life, liberty, and property from Day 1.
Court’s Justification
- Book knowledge and pre-service training are not substitutes for real courtroom exposure.
- Learning by assisting seniors, observing judicial proceedings, and experiencing case flow is seen as indispensable.
Concerns and Criticisms Raised
- Hardship for recent law graduates (2023–25 batch) who prepared under the old eligibility criteria.
Review petitioners argue the change:
- Violates legitimate expectations
- Causes retrospective disadvantage
- Infringes Article 14 (Right to Equality)
Access and Certification Issues
- Practical hurdle: Candidates must get a practice certificate from a 10-year experienced lawyer.
- Many young lawyers (like petitioner Chandra Sharma) worked with seniors who don’t meet the 10-year threshold, adding bureaucratic difficulty.
Shetty Commission Debate
- SC cited the 1999 Shetty Commission, which recommended a 3-year rule.
- However, the same report also noted that modern legal education with practical training might negate the need for such a rule, if robust post-selection training is ensured.
Arguments for Reform and Phased Implementation
Petitioners suggest:
- Implement the 3-year rule from 2027 to avoid penalising current aspirants.
- Emphasize training post-selection rather than pre-entry restrictions.
Larger Questions Raised
- Should judicial recruitment focus more on experience or aptitude?
- Does the rule reduce access for talented freshers from marginalised or rural backgrounds?
- How to balance professional competence with inclusion and fairness in judicial recruitment?
