Three Years Practice Rule: Evolution, Implication And Judicial Analysis
- IJLLR Journal
- Jun 15
- 1 min read
Shivang Kumar, B.A. LL.B., Central University of South Bihar, Gaya, India.
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the three years practice rule mandated recently by the Supreme Court. How this rule has evolved from various reports of Law Commission of India, Shetty’s Commission and legal precedence that shaped it in contemporary times. What were the reason behind restoring 3 years practice rule. It explains the reasoning given by Supreme Court and BCI for mandating the practice.
This paper also explores the various concern of different High Court over mandating this practice. Some High Courts were of the opinion to mandate practice for 3 years and some for 2 years. Further, this paper explains the current scenario of this practice rule, from when this 3 years practice rule would be counted and how will the three years practice rule be taken into account.
Also, this paper analyses the implication of this ruling over the judicial aspirants which belongs to rural, underprivileged and economically weaker section of society, it also analyses the impact of ruling over women & first generational lawyers whose doors for opting law as career has been closed initially. It also explains the impact of this ruling over pending vacancy of judges and cases of India.
At last, this paper gives an alternative solution instead of mandating three- year practice, the judicial training should be intensive and period of training should be increased, which results in balancing the need of solution for inexperience civil judge and also safeguarding the interest of judicial aspirants, women and first generational lawyers.
