The Supreme Court has issued a new ruling stating that candidates must have worked as lawyers for at least three years to apply for the position of judge. In 2002, the minimum training requirement was removed, allowing new law graduates to apply for the position of magistrate. Subsequently, several applications were filed in the Supreme Court seeking to reinstate the condition that only lawyers could apply. Furthermore, many high courts support the move to reinstate the minimum training requirement.The Supreme Court has expressed concern regarding the admission of new law graduates into the judiciary without any practical experience as lawyers. Following this, the court conducted a thorough examination of whether the minimum training requirement should be reinstated as a qualification for applying to entry-level positions in the judicial service. The Supreme Court recorded all arguments and postponed its ruling without specifying a date on January 28. In this context, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, P.R. Kawai, along with Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinoth Chandran, has ruled that allowing newly qualified lawyers to assume judicial positions in the judiciary has led to various issues. Consequently, it is mandated that an individual must have a minimum of three years of experience as a practicing lawyer to apply for entry-level positions within the judiciary. This duration of practice can be calculated from the date of provisional registration as a lawyer. This directive does not apply to recruitment processes that were previously initiated by higher courts. This is applicable solely to the upcoming recruitment process. Until now, the related case has been pending in the Supreme Court, but a ruling has now been issued. Consequently, all previously suspended recruitment procedures can now be initiated without any hindrance, as the judges have concluded the related case and provided their directive.
