Is 3 Years of Practice Before Judiciary Exams the Right Move? A Deep Dive into the Debate. -

In recent times, the Indian legal fraternity has found itself in the midst of a major discussion: Should a candidate be required to have three years of legal practice before appearing for judicial service examinations? This proposition already implemented in some states and under serious consideration in others has stirred debates about merit, experience, access, and the very nature of what it means to be a judge.

Understanding the Judiciary Exams

Judiciary exams, officially known as the Provincial Civil Services – Judicial (PCS-J) exams, are conducted by state public service commissions to recruit civil judges. Traditionally, law graduates have been eligible to sit for these exams immediately upon graduation. However, some states like Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have introduced rules requiring a minimum number of years in practice typically three before a candidate can apply. This shift reflects a growing belief among policymakers that experience is essential to serve effectively as a judge. But this seemingly logical move raises several concerns.

The Rationale Behind the 3-Year Practice Rule

The judiciary is a critical pillar of Indian democracy, and judges are expected to deliver justice swiftly, fairly, and knowledgeably. The argument in favor of the 3-year rule rests on the idea that fresh graduates, though academically sound, often lack real-world exposure.

Bridging Theory and Practice: The law is not just what is taught in classrooms it’s a living, breathing discipline shaped by practice. Three years in the courtroom helps aspirants understand court procedures, client handling, drafting, and the nuances of litigation.
Better Judicial Temperament: Experience tempers idealism with realism. Young judges who have worked in lower courts tend to appreciate the ground realities better and are arguably more empathetic and pragmatic in their judgments.
Improved Courtroom Management: A judge must not only interpret the law but manage the courtroom. This includes interacting with lawyers, police officials, clerks, and litigants. Practical exposure helps in developing the administrative acumen required for this role.

The Flip Side: Concerns and Criticisms

While the reasoning sounds valid, many in the legal and academic circles believe that the rule is exclusionary and might do more harm than good.

Access to Judiciary Becomes Difficult: A large number of law graduates, especially from modest backgrounds, see the judiciary as a secure and prestigious career path. Making practice mandatory delays their entry into a stable profession, often pushing them into uncertain litigation practice without support.
Quality of Practice Varies: Not all “three years” of practice are equal. Some candidates may get rich exposure, while others may struggle to find meaningful work. If the quality of practice isn’t standardized, the very objective of the rule is defeated.
Coaching Culture Still Prevails: Critics argue that practice experience might not significantly improve judicial aptitude, especially when most aspirants continue to rely heavily on coaching centers. The rote method of preparation may persist regardless of work experience.
Discriminatory Impact on Women: Female candidates, especially from conservative backgrounds, may find it harder to sustain three years in often male-dominated court spaces before sitting for an exam, limiting their chances of judicial entry.

What Does the Bar Council Say?

In 2022, the Bar Council of India (BCI) supported the idea of a minimum practice period before taking judicial exams. Their view was that young law graduates were not ready to become judges directly out of college, especially when many lacked the soft skills or confidence required in a court setting. They also proposed uniformity in eligibility standards across states to ensure fairness.

The Middle Ground: What Could Be Done?

Rather than implementing a blanket rule, a nuanced approach could be considered:

Internship-Based Credit System: Law schools could be mandated to provide more rigorous internships, with students earning practical experience credits that contribute toward eligibility.
Bridge Courses or Bar-Style Exams: A post-graduate judicial training diploma could be introduced that mixes theoretical exams with practical court training.
Mentorship Programs: Linking law graduates with practicing lawyers for hands-on experience during the final year of law school could close the experience gap.

Conclusion: Experience vs Opportunity

The 3-year practice requirement for judiciary aspirants is rooted in the intention to make the judicial system more effective. However, it brings with it a complex mix of advantages and unintended barriers. While experience undoubtedly enhances judicial functioning, care must be taken to ensure that access to justice careers doesn’t become the privilege of the few.

As India continues to evolve its legal education and judicial infrastructure, any reform must strike a careful balance between learning and doing, between access and excellence. After all, the strength of the judiciary lies not just in experienced judges, but in just and fair opportunities for all aspiring to join its ranks.

Sources:

More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/