3-Yr Legal Practice Experience For Entry-Level Civil Judges To Be Counted From Date On Which Provisional Registration Granted To Candidate: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was in agreement with the views expressed by most of the High Courts that the requirement of reintroduction of a certain number of years of practice would be necessary.
The Supreme Court while restoring 3-year minimum legal practice experience for entry-level Civil Judges, held that the experience should be counted from the date on which provisional registration has been granted to a candidate.
The Court was deciding a batch of Applications raising issues pertaining to the qualification, promotion and selection of candidates who are desirous of either entering the Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and with regard to the promotions at different levels within the Judicial Services.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “There could be various reasons as to why the candidates are not in a position to appear for AIBE. Different Universities may declare their results at different time which may lead to a candidate losing the opportunity to appear for such an examination in a particular year. It will be relevant to note that after a candidate receives the provisional registration, he/she is entitled to practice within the State of which the Bar Council has given the said provisional registration. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the experience should be counted from the date on which provisional registration has been granted to a candidate.”
The Bench was in agreement with the views expressed by most of the High Courts that the requirement of reintroduction of a certain number of years of practice would be necessary.
Background
The Applications in this case were filed for seeking the following reliefs and directions –
(i) For clarification/directions whether the quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for induction in the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service is to be maintained on the cadre strength of District Judge (Entry Level) or on the basis of the vacancies arising each year; or
(ii) In the alternative, modify the 2010 Order passed in the Writ Petition by restoring the share and/or quota for LDCE for introduction in West Bengal Higher Judicial Service to 25% of the cadre strength of District Judge (Entry Level).
(iii) Method of regular promotion (Objective Suitability Test); and
(iv) Enhancement of percentage of quota for accelerated promotion strictly on the basis of merit through competitive examination for the post of District Judges.
(v) For modification of 2010 Order (i.e. to increase and restore the quota to 25% from 10% for accelerated promotion to the post of District Judges) and to stay regular promotion initiated by the Bombay High Court until a suitability test is conducted in terms of the Apex Court’s 2002 Judgment.
(vi) Modify Orders to suitably amend the LDCE eligibility conditions for all States and Union Territories, so that the LDCE quota is fully utilized; and
(vii) Modify the 2010 Judgment and Order, to restore the LDCE quota to 25% instead of 10%.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “We are of the view that though every High Court would be required to frame the Rules for determining the suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), no straight-jacket formula can be laid down for the said purpose. We however find that, in such of the States where the Rules have not been framed for determining the suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), such of the High Courts and the State Governments should frame the Rules forthwith.”
The Court added that the High Courts and the State Governments shall also examine, as to whether the Rules already existing are sufficient to determine the suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division).
“It is further to be noted that though one or two High Courts have stated that the experience should be counted from the date on which AIBE is passed, most of the High Courts have not given their opinion on the same. It is only the State of Orissa, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the High Court of Delhi and the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh who have recommended that the date of experience should be counted from the date on which the provisional registration was granted to a candidate”, it further said.
The Court remarked that though the Chhattisgarh High Court has recommended reintroduction of a practice of minimum 3 years, it is the Government of Chhattisgarh which has opposed the same. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had recommended the reintroduction of the requirement of minimum 2 years of experience but the Haryana State opposed the same.
“The States of Nagaland and Tripura have opposed such reintroduction. … It is further to be noted that insofar as the High Courts are concerned, except the High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim, no other High Court has opposed such reintroduction of the pre-requisite of practice at the Bar”, it added.
The Court was of the view that the appointment of such fresh law graduates has led to many problems.
“We are conscious of the fact that in the initial years, the opportunities available to a young lawyer, fresh from college will be minimal. However, the exposure to courts and more particularly litigants and their briefs would acquaint them with the onerous duties and responsibilities of every stakeholder in the judicial system. It would bring in a sensitivity to human problems, more clarity in the decision making process and educate them of the role of the Bar in justice dispensation”, it also noted.
The Court observed that 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 and 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. The candidate should be equipped to understand the intricacies of the functions of a Judge. The experience of various High Courts has also shown that such fresh law graduates, upon their entry in judicial service, begin to show behavioural and temperament problems”, it added.
Conclusion
Furthermore, the Court said that in a Mofussil Court, there would not be much difficulty inasmuch as taking into consideration the number of lawyers appearing before the Court at such places, the Judicial Officers working at that station can certify that such a candidate has practiced before such Court for a requisite number of years.
“The difficulty may arise at larger stations or in metropolitan cities. At such places, it could be provided that a certificate by an advocate having a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by a Principal Judicial Officer of such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer at a station, certifying that such a candidate has actually practiced for the requisite number of years would take care of the said concern”, it also noted.
The Court held that insofar as the candidates who are practicing before the High Courts or the Supreme Court, they shall be certified by an Advocate who has a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by an officer designated by that High Court or Supreme Court.
“We are also of the view that the experience of the candidates which they have gained while working as Law Clerks with any of the Judges or Judicial Officers in the country should also be considered while calculating their total number of years of practice”, it concluded.
Court’s Directions
The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –
(i) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service Rules to the effect that the quota of reservation for LDCE for promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service is increased to 25%;
(ii) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that the minimum qualifying service required to appear in the LDCE for promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service be reduced to 3 years’ service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the total service required to be undertaken, including service rendered as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division), be set at a minimum of 7 years’ service;
(iii) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that 10% of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) be reserved for accelerated promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) candidates through LDCE mechanism;
(iv) If any post reserved for LDCE for either Civil Judge (Senior Division) or for the Higher Judiciary remains vacant, the same shall be filled through regular promotion on the basis of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ in that particular year.
(v) The High Courts and the Governments of the States where the vacancies for the LDCE are not being calculated based on the cadre strength shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that the vacancies for LDCE be calculated on the basis of cadre strength;
(vi) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country where the Rules are not framed or if they are framed but are not adequate to judge the suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall frame fresh Rules or amend the existing Rules;
(vii) All the High Courts and the State Governments shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination.
(viii) The number of years of practice completed by a candidate desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) be calculated from the date of their provisional enrolment/registration with the concerned State Bar Council;
(ix) The said requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the concerned High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of this judgment and shall be applicable only from the next recruitment process; and
(x) All the amendments in terms of the aforesaid directions shall be carried out by the High Courts within a period of three months from the date of this judgment and the concerned State Governments shall consider and approve the same within a further period of three months.
Accordingly, the Apex Court ordered that all such recruitment processes which have been kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with the Rules which were applicable on the date of advertisement/notification.
Cause Title- All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 735)
Appearance:
Senior Advocates B.H. Marlapalle, Sidharth Bhatnagar, AORs Radhika Gautam, Ankit Yadav, and Advocate Aditya Sidhra.
