Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Requirement Of 3-Year Practice As Advocate For Civil Judge Exam
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules mandating a prerequisite of 3 years of practice as an advocate for law graduates who did not achieve a minimum aggregate of 70% marks in their LL.B. examination, as a condition for eligibility in recruitment to the subordinate judiciary as Civil Judges. Though the Court initially imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 on the petitioner, the same was waived upon request by the petitioner.
The PIL was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Rule 7(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules of 1994 on the basis of the precedent set in the third All India Judges Association Case, whereby the Supreme Court eliminated the requirement of three years practice as an advocate for a candidate to be eligible for recruitment in the subordinate judicial service at the entry-level.
At the outset, the bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol expressed their disinclination to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Justice Roy inquired, "Why have you filed this under Article 32?" to which the Petitioner replied, "This petition is predicated on the violation of a binding direction issued by a three-judge Bench of this Court in the All India Judges Association Case."
The petitioner further explained that due to paragraph 40 of the judgment, which states that any clarification needed on matters arising from this decision should be sought only from this Court, they cannot approach the High Court. "There is an exclusion of Jurisdiction", stated the Petitioner.
The Bench further stated that the said para refers to the implementation. Justice Roy asked, "Why can't the High Court examine the matter?". Justice Karole then said, "We have dismissed identical matters asking them to approach the Jurisdictional High Court". Justice Roy also cautioned the Petitioner from making any further submissions. "You will not have the option of going back. We will simply dismiss it if you proceed any further", stated Justice Roy.
However, noting that the counsel proceeded to submit further, the Bench in its order noted, "We have heard Vivek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Although we had pointed out to the learned counsel that the Petitioner should not persist with a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Counsel refers to the ratio in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. (AIR 2002 SC 1752). More particularly, Mr. Sharma reads para 32 and 40 of the Judgement."
Para 32 reads thus:- "32. In the All India Judges case , this Court has observed that in order to enter the judicial service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three years' 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 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 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' case (supra), 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 year, preferably two years. 40. Any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other Court shall entertain them."
The Bench further noted, "Apart from the above, the counsel submits that since the concern amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules where amended in consultation with the High Court on the administrative side, a Petition under article 226 of the constitution may not lie before the High Court. We have considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel and are quite certain that the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the constitution should not be entertained only because of two aforesaid contentions. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs 30,000."
Upon a request by the counsel for the petitioner, the Court withdrew its order imposing cost.
The Petition filed by Advocate Vivek Sharma through the Advocate-on-Record Jasmine Damkewala stated that profound twofold change was introduced making three years of standing as an Advocate compulsory for students who had secured less than 70% marks in their aggregate in their LL.B. examination or not passed all LL.B papers in the first attempt (50% for reserved category).
It is submitted in the PIL that, "The amendment also created a privileged class of students having a brilliant academic career in contrast with the bulk majority who were to be treated as plain or ordinary and who were not even to be permitted to compete in the selection process for three years but to bid their time by enrolling themselves at the Bar and practice as an Advocate, whether they have a single brief in their hands or not."
Cause Title: Vivek Sharma & Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [Diary No.- 36687 - 2023]
The story has been updated with inputs received post publication.
