Answer

The Supreme Court’s three-year practice mandate for judicial service raises concerns about judicial quality, diversity, and access to justice. While aimed at enhancing competence, it risks limiting inclusivity. This calls for a critical review in light of constitutional propriety and judicial reform.

Advantages and disadvantages of Supreme Court’s mandate requiring three years of legal practice for judicial service entry

Implications on judicial quality, diversity, constitutional propriety and access to justice

• Enhanced Practical Competence: Prior legal practice equips candidates with courtroom experience, procedural familiarity, and insight into systemic delays. This makes them better prepared to deliver effective grassroots justice.
• Barrier for first-generation graduates and women: The requirement may disproportionately affect those from disadvantaged backgrounds and females who seek judicial service for job security early.
  Example: Women comprise 38 percent of district judges currently and may further struggle to finance three years of low-earning practice.
• Reduces entry of academic achievers: Talented law graduates who shine in exams but lack resources to practice may be excluded, affecting diversity of talent.
• Consistency with earlier rulings: The decision restores the 1993 Dev Dutt Sharma Case and reverses the 2002 deviation, aligning with judicial precedent.
• Judicial Overreach: Encroaches on executive and state commissions’ prerogative under Article 234 to set eligibility criteria, raising separation-of-powers concerns.
• Delays in recruitment: States may face backlogs as the eligible pool reduces temporarily, impacting judge-to-case ratio in district courts.
  

Reforms for an inclusive, merit-based district judiciary

• Structured hybrid eligibility: Combine a shorter Bar-practice threshold (e.g., one year) with a mandatory in-service apprenticeship under senior judges, ensuring both exposure and maturity.
• Enhanced judicial training: Strengthen academies with low faculty-to-trainee ratios, hands-on mentorship, mock court exercises and ethics modules before and after appointment.
• Transparent assessment of practice quality: Require digital practice logs (court appearances, judgments handled) verified by registry seals to ensure genuine exposure.
• Flexible entry routes: Maintain direct recruitment for top law graduates through rigorous exams and interviews alongside the Bar-entry path to balance fresh talent and experience.
• Targeted support for diversity: Offer stipends or fellowships for women and underprivileged candidates during their practice years, and reserve interview bonus marks for socio-economically disadvantaged groups.
  

Judicial reforms must balance practical experience with inclusivity through merit-based recruitment and structured training. Ensuring diversity and fairness in the judiciary will strengthen its efficiency and integrity. A robust district judiciary is vital for justice and constitutional values.

DOWNLOAD PDF