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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
25 minutes ago
- India Gazette
SC notice to states on plea of Wazahat Khan, complainant against influencer Sharmistha Panoli
New Delhi [India], June 23 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Centre and certain states on a plea filed by Wazahat Khan, the man whose complaint led to the arrest of influencer Sharmistha Panoli, seeking clubbing of FIRs lodged against him across multiple states for allegedly hurting religious sentiments through his social media posts. A vacation bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh issued notices to the government of Assam, West Bengal, Delhi and Haryana and posted the matter for hearing on July 14. 'These hate speeches lead us nowhere,' said Justice Viswanathan to Khan's counsel. On request of Khan's counsel, the bench further ordered that as an interim measure till the next hearing date, no coercive action shall be taken against him for the FIRs registered or may be registered, which are similar. The bench noted that Khan was arrested in two cases registered in West Bengal and was in police custody in the FIR registered by the Golf Link Police Station, Kolkata, and was remanded to judicial custody in the other Bengal FIR. Justice Viswanathan invoked a saying that wounds inflicted by fire may heal, but not the wounds inflicted by the tongue. During the hearing, Khan's lawyer said that cases have been registered against him nationwide in retaliation for his complaint against the social media influencer Panoli. Khan is 'reaping as he has sown' but he has apologised for the tweet, after having 'learnt the lesson the hard way', said the counsel. Khan, whose complaint led to influencer Sharmistha Panoli's arrest on May 30, was himself arrested on June 9 in Kolkata's Amherst Street area. Multiple FIRs were filed against Khan, including one in Assam, for 'allegedly spreading hatred on social media and hurting religious sentiments,' according to Kolkata Police officials. Panoli had posted a video on social media and allegedly made communal comments after Operation Sindoor, after the Pahalgam attack, which left at least 26 people dead in Jammu and Kashmir. (ANI)
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Two Dalit men forced to eat grass on cattle smuggling charge, Rahul Gandhi demands action
BERHAMPUR: Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Monday demanded strong action against those who forced two dalit youths to walk on knees, eat grass and drink dirty water in a village of Ganjam district on Sunday. The two were brutally tortured, half tonsured, forced to eat grass and drink drain water after being falsely accused of cattle smuggling. The shocking incident took place in broad daylight at Kharigumma village under Dharakote block on Sunday. Stating that the incident is not only inhuman, the Congress leader said that it is a mirror for those who say caste is no longer an issue. 'Every incident that trample the dignity of dalits is an attack on Baba Saheb's constitution and a conspiracy against equality, justice and humanity,' he added. Such incidents are becoming common in BJP-ruled states. Atrocities against SC, ST and women have increased worrisome manner especially in Odisha. 'The culprits should be arrested and severely punished. The country will run by the Constitution, not by Manusmriti,' he added. Sources said the victims, Bulu Nayak (52) and Babul Nayak (43) of Singipur, purchased a cow and two calves from Haripur as part of dowry arrangement of a family's marriage ceremony and were bringing the cattle to their village on a cargo auto-rickshaw.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Hate Speech Won't...": Top Court On Man Arrested Over Social Media Posts
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday took a strong exception to communal tweets by Wajahat Khan, the complainant in Sharmistha Panoli's case, who is now himself under arrest over social media posts. The top court said that hate speech won't take us anywhere. In a relief to Mr Khan, the top court today said that barring the current proceedings in which he is under police custody in West Bengal in two FIRs, no coercive action should be taken against him in FIRs filed in other states. Mr Khan had recently filed a complaint against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli over her communal videos on social media on Operation Sindoor. However, he was arrested by Kolkata police after his past communal tweets surfaced. He approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing or clubbing of FIRs registered against him across 6 states, including Assam, Bengal, Maharashtra, Haryana and Delhi. The top court issued notice to 6 states returnable by July 14. These FIRs in other states have been stayed till the next hearing. The bench also ordered that no coercive action be taken against him on any FIR that may be registered in future over the same allegations. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Khan in the top court today. At the outset of the hearing, the bench questioned the counsel over his tweets. "You have not annexed the tweets? The bench of Justice KV Vishwanathan and NK Singh at the outset questioned the counsel appearing for Wajahat Khan. "My tweets are deleted and I have posted an apology", his counsel told the court. Terming these posts as "hate tweets", the top court expressed concern and also quoted a Tamil proverb which roughly translates to "wounds inflicted by fire may heal, but not the wounds inflicted by tongue." Mr Naidu, appearing for Mr Khan, told the court that FIRs are registered across multiple states; he can't be expected to go to those states. The counsel also read out the apology tweet written by him to "Hindu brothers". Mr Naidu further argued that the complaints were filed in retaliation for his complaints against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli, who is out on bail. FIRs have been filed against Wajahat Khan in several states for inciting religious sentiments and posting hate-mongering material. Wajahat Khan is currently in police custody after being arrested by Kolkata Police on June 10.
