• Brain Booster Articles

BCI: THREE YEAR MANDATORY PRACTICING FOR JUDICIAL SERVICES

Author: Satya Bhama, IV year of BA., LL.B. from Lloyd Law College



INTRODUCTION

The Bar council of India moved to the Supreme Court in the favour of three years of experience in legal practice to get eligibility to sit in the judicial exam. On 3rd January 2021, the Bar council in their press release recommended Supreme Court to implement the three-year minimum experience at the Bar of being considered eligible to sit for judicial services examination. The Bar council of India in their press release said that presently fresh law graduates are allowed to sit for judicial examination throughout the territory of India without having any practical experience at the bar and mostly found incapable and inept in handling matters. In their press release, they stated the fresh law students who were allowed to sit in the exam and who passed the exam and become the judge having a lack of practical knowledge and experience. Most of the officers are found impolite and impractical in their behaviour with the members of the Bar and the litigants. The Bar Council of India said that the inexperience at the Bar is one of the primary and major reasons for the delay in the disposal of cases in the subordinate judiciary. From their point of view trained and experienced judicial officers can comprehend and dispose of matters at a much faster pace, thereby leading to the efficient administration of justice.


Bar council of India also said it will also apply to seek a modification of the order passed by the supreme court in 2002 in the case All India Judges Association vs. Union of India which removed the requirement of three-year experience at the bar for appearing for judicial service examinations. [1]


RANGALAGADDA VENKATESH VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. W.P 1497/2020

The writ petition has been filed before the Hon’ble supreme court of India. By the petitioner Mr. Rangalagadda Venkatesh against the state of Andhra Pradesh wherein he has challenged the appointing the post of civil judges (junior division) in the Andhra Pradesh state. The petitioner questions the eligibility requirement for three years, practice as an advocate. In support of his contention, the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in All India Judges’ Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 wherein this Court held in para 32 as follows:


“32. In All India Judges’ Assn. case, the Court has observed that to enter the judicial service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three years' standing. Rules were amended accordingly. Over time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the judicial service. A bright young law graduate after three years of practice finds the judicial service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least three years should be done away with. After considering all the circumstances, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned amicus curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the judicial service to be an Advocate of at least three years' standing. We, accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges' case direct to the High Courts and the State Governments to amend their rules to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in even three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial service.[2]


SUPREME COURT POINT OF VIEW

The Supreme Court issued a notice in a petition which seeks to quash the prerequisite condition of three years of practice as an advocate to be eligible for the civil judge exam in Andhra Pradesh. A vacation bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Aniruddha Bose heard the matter and stated that there is no such urgency in the matter for it to be heard during the vacation. Accordingly, notice has been issued to the respondent the matter will be heard in future again.[3]


IMPACT OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA NOTICE ON LAW STUDENT AND GRADUATES

With the notice of the Bar Council of India, there is so much tension and fear occurring between the students and law graduates who are preparing for the judicial services. With the notice of the Bar council, students lose their hopes and demotivate as well. Presently the exam juncture is going on. There is already a lot of pressure on the students for their exams. And by the bar council notice, the students get compelled to think about their career. In the field of law, there are many fields which opt for their career. But in my opinion, the judiciary is the only field in which the student opts this field for not doing practice as an advocate. Many advocates and law students show their disagreement with the proposal and find it wrong for the aspirants.


From my point of view, the recommendation of Bar council of India to Supreme court is not fair, because there are many IPS and IAS officers who pass the exams at a very young age and there are no such guidelines for the aspirants to gain any experience in this field and the law-making body “Parliament the Supreme law-making body of India” having young members who do not even study the law or does not have knowledge about it and if they can make a law without practising in the court as an advocate. So, it will be unfair for the students who study 3/5-year law just to pass a judicial service examination.


CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court decision is still pending on this and presently the court put a stay on this matter. The Supreme Court does not find this matter to be solved in such urgency. Many law students and advocates show their enthusiasm for this matter because it is related to the life and of the career of the aspirant who is preparing for the judicial examination. It is believed that the court will take some decision in the favour of everyone and the decision does not bias to anyone in any way.


[1] https:/india/bci-to-move-sc-

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1245776/

[3]https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court

SIGN UP AND STAY UPDATED!

Brain Booster Articles

Want to connect?

9952657851

Published by R.G.Chitra

424, Mappillai Subbaiah Street,

Rajapalayam, Tamil Nadu- 626117

Follow us

brainboosterarticles.com

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube