In a landmark decision with major implications for judiciary aspirants across the country, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 20, reinstated the requirement of a minimum three-year legal practice for candidates seeking entry-level judicial posts such as Munsiff or Magistrate.
The ruling revives an earlier norm, common across most states, which mandated that only advocates with at least three years of courtroom experience could apply for judicial roles. The period of legal practice will now be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment with a Bar Council.
To validate the experience, candidates must furnish a certificate from an advocate with a minimum of ten years’ standing. This certificate must be endorsed by a judicial officer in the respective district. For those practicing at the High Court or Supreme Court, the certificate should be endorsed by an officer designated by the respective court.
This pivotal verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran, in the matter of the All India Judges Association case.
The three-year practice condition had previously been scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2002, enabling fresh law graduates to directly apply for judicial service. However, a series of petitions filed later urged the court to bring back the practice requirement, a move also supported by multiple High Courts concerned about the quality of judicial appointments.
With this judgment, the apex court has drawn a clear line in favor of experience and courtroom exposure as essential prerequisites for joining the judiciary.
Post a Comment