3 Year mandatory practice challenged in review petition.

A review petition has been filed by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav against the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India Case. The Hon’ble court on May 20th introduced a mandatory rule of 3 years of practice as a lawyer before appearing for the civil judicial (junior) examination.

The review petition states that the judgment may be violative of Article 14 (Equality before the law) and Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Indian Constitution.

History:

The 116th Law Commission reportof 1986 on Formation of an all-India judicial service stated that “Swaran Singh committee 1976 dealt with the question of organising judicial services at an all-India level………..chairman of the law commission expressed in his personal apprehension that no lawyer in his personal opinion an apprehension that no lawyers with sufficient practise would like to face the prospects of subordinate judge.”

Then in the 117th Law commission report of 1986 on Training of Judicial officers, it was that ,”One can enter the judicial service in France after graduation without any qualifying previous practice at the Bar. This method has attracted young people with good talent to the service without the hazard of a waiting period at the Bar.”

“A member of Bar expressed an opinion ……it would be advantageous to provide statutorily that anyone who wishes to join the subordinate judiciary must have adequate training under a senior lawyer for 6 months for civil and 6 months for criminal………..it was incumbent upon anyone wishing to join the bar to enroll under a senior advocate for a period of one year to be trained in the art of advocacy. After evaluating this mode of training, it has been given a decent burial. It is not possible to retrieve it from the past where it is buried.”

In the trilogy was the 118th Law Commission report of 1986 on the Method of appointment to subordinate courts/subordinate Judiciary. The report clearly stated that “Law commission has reached an affirmative conclusion that his minimum practise [practise at bar before examination] at bar hardly qualifies the person to be a better judge.”

Then, the 3-year rule was first introduced in the All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India case in 1993.

Then, in 2002, on the recommendation of the Shetty Commission, the court abolished the three-year practice. The rationale was that the rule was discouraging talented law graduates from joining the judiciary, as many lost interest in judicial service after spending three years in active practice.

Present Status:

Finally, on 30th May, the court again, in the case of All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, reinstated the 3-year mandatory practice. The rule was to apply to graduates after 2027.

The judgment was recently challenged by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, citing that it might violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.