3-year rule hurts judiciary hopefuls

• The Supreme Court has reintroduced the three-year rule for judicial services exams, a decision made by a three-judge Bench.

• The decision, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavi, Justices A.G. Masih, and K.V. Chandran, argues that the Supreme Court has consistently been inconsistent in its approach.

• The decision was based on the majority of the High Courts’ advocacy for the three-year rule.

• The rule was first addressed in the 14th Law Commission of India (LCI) report in 1958, which suggested that individuals with three to five years of experience should be eligible for lower subordinate judge examinations.

• The All India Judicial Services (AIJS) was proposed for higher judiciary, requiring no practical experience.

• The All India Judges’ Association versus Union of India, 1992, endorsed the LCI Report and its provisions on AIJS, including the recommendation to allow fresh law graduates to compete in the exam.

• The court has since ruled that a minimum legal practice of three years is essential to qualify for the subordinate judicial services examination.

Attracting Talent in Judicial Services

The Shetty Commission’s Recommendation

• The Justice Shetty Commission in 1996 found that the three-year rule for judicial service was not effective in attracting the best talent.

• The Supreme Court in the All India Judges’ Association versus Union of India (2002) discarded the three-year rule, stating that the best talent is not attracted to the judicial service.

The Challenges of the Three-Year Rule

• The best law students are in National Law Universities, often getting lucrative corporate placements and repaying education loans.

• The mandatory three-year practice rule could discourage brighter minds from joining the judicial services, especially economically backward and SC/ST/OBC candidates.

Challenges and Solutions

• The Bar Council of India has encouraged senior advocates and firms to pay a minimum of ₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban centres to junior lawyers.

• The minimum stipend for junior lawyers is not enough for law students without connections in the field.

• The three-year rule could make women, who account for 38% of the judges in district judiciary, financially vulnerable and older compared to their counterparts in the civil services.

• The judicial services examination is not held at regular intervals, making it difficult for candidates to wait for the exam to be advertised.

The Solution

• Catch young talent and enhance the training period to two years or more.

• Trainee officers may serve as probationers to serving District and Sessions Judge or Justices of the High Court.

• The examination should be based on scenario-based questions and judgment writing should carry more weightage.