The Three-Year Practice Mandate: Gatekeeper or Roadblock to Judicial Dreams?

The Indian judiciary has been celebrated as one of the most important pillars of democracy, protecting the Constitution and fundamental rights, and ensuring the delivery of justice. Joining the judiciary through judicial service exams has been a long-time dream of law graduates and young advocates to become judicial officer. In recent times, a move that generated a lot of controversy has been an amendment in its eligibility criterion for these examinations with the announcement of a three-year practice requirement as a precondition for appearing in judiciary exams.

This article seeks to critique and analyse whether this 3 years mandatory practice mandate is acting as a gatekeeper to secure the judicially competent or roadblock the qualified aspirants namely fresh law graduates.

Rationale behind the three-year practice mandate 

The key reason that mandatory practice clause is installed become improve the quality of the problem of Judicial Officer. Judiciary is not just legal knowledge but about application of law, experience in the court, case management skills, legal drafting and the procedural intricacies should stand in good stead. Lawyers who have spent at least a few years practising are deemed to have gained an important understanding of the real nature of the law that could not all be learned within the confines of the ivory towers of the academy.

This reform conforms to international practice where many countries require practising law or professional learning for some time before appointment as judges. The assumption is that experience of this kind fosters what it takes to be a judge’s temperament, practical wisdom, and empathetic appreciation of litigants’ circumstances—all of which are prerequisites to judging.

In addition, standardizing the qualification requirements and possibly decreasing the number of inadequately prepared candidates will make the judicial recruitment process more responsive in the long run, and will be better for providing justice.

Challenges 

Despite its laudatory purposes, the three-year practice requirement has been attacked by different groups such as law students, teachers, and lawyers. The concern here is mainly regarding freshly graduated law aspirants and final-year students who earlier, could aspire for the judiciary exams directly post graduating law or after short internships. This delay in career onset throws them at the mercy of protracted legal practice with no visible route towards the bench.

This delay particularly discriminates against the interest of certain groups which tend to be equally deserving of access to the profession- women; those from an economically poorer background and anyone on a rural background for whom continued practice at law is logistically or financially prohibitive. The long wait to be eligible may discourage even worthy candidates, thereby impeding diversity and inclusion on the bench Moreover, the order could worsen an already large backlog of vacant judgeships. The limitation of the pool through the recruitment process may serve to slow the pace of appointments and as a result delay justice.

Internship 

There is a bone of contention on this dichotomy due to the legal internships, apprenticeship and the three-year ‘practice’. Internships completed during law school offer essential exposure to the legal work, but tend to be temporary/guided experiences with little opportunity for independent legal practice during the internships. The prerequisite of independent practice makes the compulsory post-examination practice requirement more stringent.

But a decision needs to be made whether regular (‘structured’) internships and, and specially a prestigious and professional internships, should be (legally) taken account of as part of the training, especially for those who have trained more for and with senior advocates or judges in ‘in-company training’. This recognition could also bring in academic learning into the practical preparedness and expand the ambit of the mandate. 

Alternative perspective 

In view of the above, values of programs that balance practical experience and access need to be investigated. Among others is the creation of integrated judicial training academies which will impart practical training, simulation exercises, mentoring to young law graduates, before their formal induction as judges. This is a model used in some countries to train candidates and give them hands-on experience.

Another suggestion is to broaden the definition of “practice” to incorporate jobs as legal aid lawyers or in pro bono services, and legal research positions, all of which make a significant contribution to an applicant’s preparedness. That would be most helpful for those who do not come from privileged backgrounds or from areas with minimal litigation opportunities.

Both the courts and law commissions should periodically examine the impact of the mandate and make any needed amendments to prevent unintended exclusions. Special allowances like for the women candidate, for the differently-abled persons might promote equity.

Conclusion:

The introduction of the three-year mandate practice is the vital step in the field of judiciary it basically enhances the quality of judicial officers, that will help in law making. But the mandate should neither be a rigid nor a mere formality. It requires a balanced approach. 

This article is authored by Shruti Sahay, who was among the Top 40 performers in the Constitution Law Quiz Competition organized by Lets Learn Law.