S. Basavaraj, Member, Karnataka State Bar Council.
The recent challenge before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition 1479/2020 questions the Notification of the Andra Pradesh Public Service Commission dated 3:12:2020. The Notification invites applications for appointment of Civil Judges Junior Division in the AP State Judicial Service for Advocates having a minimum eligibility requirement of 3 years as practicing advocate.
The Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and others vs Union of India and others , Writ Petition (Civil) 1022/1989 decided on 21 March 2002, Justice B.N. Kirpal, Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Justice V.N. Khare, relied on the report of Justice K.Jagannatha Shetty and observed as follows:
“In the All India Judges’s case [1993] 4 SCC 288 at p. 314; this Court has observed that in order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three year’s standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after 3 year 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 3 years should be done away with. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, 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’ cases direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as 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. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one years, preferably two years. The Shetty Commission has recommended Assured Career Progessive Scheme and Functional Scales. We have accepted the said recommendation and a suggestion was mooted to the effect that in order that a Judicial Officer does not feel that he is stagnated there should be a change in the nomenclature with the change of the pay scale.” (PDF copy of the judgment is below.
The Bar Council of India has issued a press release dated 2 January 2021 stating that it is filing an application for impleadment as party in Writ Petition 1479/2020 and to plead in favour of the urgency and requirement to have a minimum 3 year experience at the Bar as a requirement to be eligible to sit in the Judicial Service Exam.
The BCI has expressed deep concern over Judicial Officers not having practical experience at the Bar being incapable and inept in handling matters. BCI says that most of such officers are found impolite and impractical in their behaviour with the Members of the Bar and litigants. ‘They have lack of understanding of the aspirations and expectations of Advocates and litigants in the matter of proper and decent behavior’, the BCI letter says.
Many experienced lawyers practicing in the trial court concur with the views of the BCI. ‘There is immediate need for making minimum practice as lawyer as a qualification to be a judge’, they say.
Since the judgment in All India Judges Association case was delivered by three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court, it is necessary that a larger bench is constituted to consider its validity.
Daksha Legal 