Are you looking the content how the Supreme Court heard the case of advocates without practice to join the judicial service?
Since there are a number of issues before the High Court regarding a lack of understanding regarding how the courts operate, the Supreme Court took into consideration whether the requirement of three years of bar practice in addition to a legal degree should be reinstated for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination. In the All India Judges Association case (2002), the Supreme Court eliminated this criterion.
The All India Judges Association filed a writ petition, which is presently being heard by a bench of Justices B. R. Gavai, A.J. Masih, and K. V. Chandran. The petition raises a number of problems, from judges’ service conditions to pensions. Whether to reinstate three years of legal practice was one of the topics that prominent attorney and amicus curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar brought up for discussion.
The admission of recent law graduates into the judicial system without any prior advocacy experience was a point of worry for the amicus curiae.
According to Bhatnagar, the matter was initially examined in the 1993 All-India Judges Association case, when the Court noted:
Pre-service training and academic knowledge cannot fully replace practical experience in the operation of the legal system and the administration of justice via the practice of law. Advocacy is only one aspect of practice; a lawyer must engage with numerous facets of the administration of justice. Therefore, legal experience is necessary for the judge to carry out his responsibilities effectively, confidently, and carefully. Therefore, in order to be appointed as a judicial officer, several jurisdictions required at least three years of experience as an advocate.
Therefore, it is imperative that all states mandate the aforementioned minimal legal practice as a prerequisite for hiring at the lowest level of the judiciary. Regarding this, it should be noted that Article 233(2) of the Constitution states that no one can be appointed as a District Judge unless they have been an advocate for at least seven years, while Articles 217(2)(b) and 124(3)(b) stipulate that a person must have practiced as an advocate for a High Court for at least ten years in order to be appointed as a High Court judge or a Supreme Court judge, respectively. As a result, we order all States to act right away to make three years of experience as an advocate a requirement for hiring judicial officers.
Supreme Court heard the case of advocates without practice to join the judicial service.
Present status of JCJ recruitment requires 3 years experience mandatory.
Last twenty years(from 2002) recruited freshers. No empherical proof that freshers performance is poor.
Freshers are outperforming in Bureaucracy (IAS,IPS,IFS,etc.,)
Even fresh MLA/MPs are entering parliament/Assembly.
Fresh IIT,IIMs, etc., are changing the world taking international assignments becoming CEO.
All these are proved.
Why judiciary not respecting fresh blood like other sectors.
Prejudices of conventional BAR people & Generation jealousy is witnessed lot.
Present status of JCJ recruitment trying 3 years experience mandatory.
Last twenty years(from 2002) all states recruited freshers. No empherical proof that freshers performance is poor.
All fresher’s has to unite and raise the voice.