{"id":3932,"date":"2025-05-21T11:40:49","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T11:40:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawentranceindia.com\/blogs\/?p=3932"},"modified":"2025-05-21T11:48:29","modified_gmt":"2025-05-21T11:48:29","slug":"mlc-daily-current-affairs-21-may-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawentranceindia.com\/blogs\/mlc-daily-current-affairs-21-may-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"MLC Daily Current Affairs – 21 May 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today in History (May 21st<\/sup>,1927)<\/h1>\n

First nonstop solo transatlantic flight made by Charles Lindbergh American aviator Charles Lindbergh completed the first nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean on this day in 1927, traveling from New York to Paris in the monoplane Spirit of Saint Louis in about 33.5 hours.<\/p>\n

Summary of Today’s News<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Supreme Court\u2019s Latest Ruling on Judicial Service Eligibility<\/span><\/h3>\n
    \n
  • On May 21, 2025<\/strong>, the Supreme Court restored the requirement<\/strong> of a minimum three years of legal practice<\/strong> as a mandatory condition<\/strong> to apply for entry-level judicial service posts<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
  • A Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai<\/strong>, in its judgment, directed all High Courts and State governments<\/strong> to:\n
      \n
    • Amend relevant service rules<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    • Ensure that candidates applying for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)<\/strong> must have practised law for at least three years<\/strong> before being eligible for the exam.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      🔹<\/strong> Court\u2019s Rationale and Observations<\/strong><\/h4>\n
        \n
      • The SC held that the appointment of fresh law graduates with zero practice<\/strong> has not been a successful experiment<\/strong> over the last 20 years<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
      • The infusion of inexperienced candidates<\/strong> was found to be detrimental<\/strong> to the quality and effectiveness of the judiciary.<\/li>\n
      • Chief Justice Gavai<\/strong>, who authored the judgment, remarked:\n
          \n
        • Book knowledge and pre-service training<\/strong> are not adequate substitutes<\/strong> for real courtroom experience<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
        • Litigation practice<\/strong> provides crucial first-hand exposure essential for judicial competence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          🔹<\/strong> Applicability of the Rule<\/strong><\/h4>\n
            \n
          • The three-year practice requirement<\/strong> will not apply retroactively<\/strong>.\n
              \n
            • It will not affect ongoing recruitment where the selection process was already initiated<\/strong> before the date of the judgment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
            • The new rule will be enforced from the next recruitment cycle<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              3-year rule: a setback to judiciary aspirants: A Critical Analysis<\/span><\/h3>\n

              🔹\u00a0Background of the 3-Year Rule Judgment<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                \n
              • On May 20, 2025<\/strong>, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court<\/strong>, led by CJI B.R. Gavai (with Justices A.G. Masih and K.V. Chandran), revived the rule<\/strong> requiring three years of legal practice<\/strong> to be eligible for subordinate judicial services exams<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
              • The Court did not provide empirical evidence<\/strong> about the poor quality of fresh graduates or their success rates, yet reinstated the rule based on majority support from High Courts<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
              • The objective<\/strong>, according to the SC, is that three years of practice<\/strong> would help candidates gain exposure to courtroom decorum<\/strong>, procedural complexities<\/strong>, and the stakeholder perspectives<\/strong> within the judicial system.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                🔹<\/strong> Historical Evolution of the Rule<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                  \n
                • The 14th Law Commission Report (1958)<\/strong> recommended 3\u20135 years of experience<\/strong> to appear for State-level lower judicial services exams, focusing on practical aspects over rote learning.<\/li>\n
                • It proposed two separate models<\/strong>:\n
                    \n
                  • State-level<\/strong>: Required experience, with practical exams.<\/li>\n
                  • All India Judicial Services (AIJS)<\/strong>: Allowed fresh law graduates (21\u201325 years old) without experience but included rigorous training schemes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                  • In All India Judges\u2019 Association v. Union of India (1992)<\/strong>:\n
                      \n
                    • SC accepted LCI\u2019s recommendation for AIJS.<\/li>\n
                    • Directed the Union Government to establish AIJS allowing fresh graduates.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                    • In a 1993 review petition<\/strong>, the SC reversed course:\n
                        \n
                      • Stated that fresh graduates lacked the maturity to handle cases affecting life, liberty, property, and reputation<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                      • Directed all States to mandate three years of legal practice<\/strong> before entry into judicial services.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                        🔹<\/strong> Reconsideration and Scrapping of the Rule<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                          \n
                        • The Justice Shetty Commission (1996)<\/strong> observed:\n
                            \n
                          • Most States implemented the 3-year rule, some even extended it beyond three years.<\/li>\n
                          • Judges were entering service only between ages 27\u201330<\/strong>, failing to attract top talent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                          • In All India Judges\u2019 Association v. Union of India (2002)<\/strong>:\n
                              \n
                            • SC scrapped the three-year rule.<\/li>\n
                            • Noted that bright graduates<\/strong> after three years of practice found the judicial service unattractive<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                            • Accepted Shetty Commission\u2019s view that the rule did not attract the best candidates<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                              🔹<\/strong> Present Concerns and Criticism of the 2025 Judgment<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                                \n
                              • The SC has again reinstated the rule<\/strong>, despite previous observations about its ineffectiveness in attracting talent.<\/li>\n
                              • Ground realities<\/strong> indicate:\n
                                  \n
                                • Top law students from NLUs<\/strong> prefer high-paying corporate jobs<\/strong>, partly to repay hefty education loans<\/strong> (\u20b912\u2013\u20b940 lakh).<\/li>\n
                                • Most such students do not view judiciary as a career<\/strong>, and vice versa for those preparing for judicial services.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                                • The three-year requirement<\/strong> will:\n
                                    \n
                                  • Deter economically weaker students<\/strong>, particularly SC\/ST\/OBCs, who cannot afford the wait and need early income.<\/li>\n
                                  • Impact women candidates<\/strong> due to career breaks and maternity leaves<\/strong>, despite their high performance (e.g., 9 of top 10 in Bihar exam were women).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                                  • Compared to civil services:<\/strong>\n
                                      \n
                                    • Civil services allow students in their final year<\/strong> to apply.<\/li>\n
                                    • Judicial services will now require 5\u20136 years of education + 3 years\u2019 practice<\/strong>, delaying financial independence.<\/li>\n
                                    • Irregular exam schedules further disincentivize aspirants<\/strong>, even those meeting eligibility.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                      🔹<\/strong> Financial and Structural Challenges<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                                        \n
                                      • Minimum stipend<\/strong> for junior advocates suggested by BCI:\n
                                          \n
                                        • \u20b915,000\/month in rural areas, \u20b920,000 in urban areas.<\/li>\n
                                        • Barely sustainable<\/strong>, Non-matriculants in Delhi are paid \u20b920,371 a month for clerical work or supervisory work in scheduled employment.<\/li>\n
                                        • An unskilled worker is paid \u20b918, 456 a month as per the minimum Wages Act.<\/li>\n
                                        • Those without legal connections<\/strong> struggle more; only the financially privileged<\/strong> can afford to wait.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                          🔹<\/strong> Suggested Reforms and the Way Forward<\/strong><\/h4>\n
                                            \n
                                          • Rather than excluding fresh talent<\/strong>, the system should:\n
                                              \n
                                            • Recruit young graduates and implement 2+ years of intensive training<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                                            • Attach trainee officers to senior judges or lawyers<\/strong> to build practical exposure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                                            • Revamp the examination pattern<\/strong>:\n
                                                \n
                                              • Use scenario-based questions<\/strong> instead of testing rote memory.<\/li>\n
                                              • Give more weightage to judgment writing and practical legal understanding<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                                Conclusion<\/strong>: Reinstating the 3-year practice rule undermines inclusivity, delays entry<\/strong>, and excludes diverse talent pools<\/strong>, risking the overall efficiency and representativeness<\/strong> of the judiciary.<\/p>\n