Need For Minimum Practice As Advocate For Judicial Service : Reigniting The Debate

"Judges do not have an easy job. On 2 nd January, the Bar Council of India said that it will file an impleadment application before the Apex Court seeking modification of the 2002 Supreme Court order in All India Judges' Association v Union of India wherei the court rejected the eligibility criteria of 3 year experience at the bar for giving state judicial service exam. However one of the qualifying criteria for Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates in India has been a practice requirement of three years before a court of law, after graduation combined with an examination and an interview conducted by the State Public State Commission in consultation with the High Court that has jurisdiction over the state. Next LCI came up with a series of recommendations in its report to revamp the sub-ordinate judiciary- 114 th Law Commission of India report- Setting up Gram Nyayalayas Law Commission of India report- Setting up Gram Nyayalayas 116 th Law Commission of India report- Setting up an All India Judicial Services Law Commission of India report- Setting up an All India Judicial Services 117 th Law Commission of India report- Setting up an Academy for Training Judicial officers at all levels Law Commission of India report- Setting up an Academy for Training Judicial officers at all levels 118th Law Commission of India report- Method of Appointments to Subordinate Courts/Subordinate judiciary Both 116th and 118th Report emphasised how 2 to 3 years of practice didn't provide sufficient experience and hardly qualified an individual to be a better judge. Apex Court asked state governments to reintroduce the three year experience requirement criteria because ".the recruitment of law graduates as judicial officers without any training or background of layering has not proved to be a successful experiment.