Why in news
The Supreme Court has reinstated a rule that requires three years of legal practice to be eligible for judicial services exams.
This means fresh law graduates can no longer directly appear for these exams right after graduation.
Historical Background
The idea dates back to 1958, when the Law Commission recommended experience before becoming a judge.
In 1992, the SC supported allowing fresh graduates to write exams, but reversed this in 1993, requiring three years’ experience.
In 2002, based on poor attraction of talent, the SC removed the experience requirement.
Now in 2024, the SC has again brought back the three-year practice rule.
Main Concerns with the Rule
Best students from top law schools prefer corporate jobs, not courtroom practice or judicial exams.
The cost of legal education (₹12–₹40 lakh) forces many to seek immediate income after graduation.
Many candidates, especially from SC/ST/OBC and poor backgrounds, cannot afford to wait three years to qualify.
Women candidates, who dominate recent judicial selections, may face more barriers due to career breaks or maternity.
Age issues arise: Unlike civil services, judicial exams happen irregularly, so candidates could be too old by the time they qualify.
Problems in Current Legal Practice
Junior lawyers often earn very low stipends (₹15,000–₹20,000), less than even unskilled workers.
Networking and connections matter more in early legal careers, disadvantaging first-generation lawyers.
Many States already struggle to fill vacancies, as fewer qualified candidates apply or pass.
Suggested Solutions
Allow fresh graduates and provide 2 years of intensive training post-selection.
Attach trainees to senior judges and lawyers to learn practical skills.
Modernise the exams with practical, scenario-based questions, rather than rote memorization.
Focus on reforming training, not just eligibility, to improve the quality of judges.
COMMENTS