The mandatory three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial appointments arbitrarily restricts eligible candidates and must be struck down as unconstitutional.
Aaj ki debate ka motion yeh hai: 'Three-Year Practice Rule for Entry-Level Judges Violates Constitutional Right to Equality' — yani kya law graduates ke liye judicial service mein pravesh se pehle teen saal ki vakaalat anivaarya karna unke samaan adhikaar ka ullanghan karta hai? Yeh ek mahatvapurna constitutional prashna hai, aur main chahti hoon ki dono paksh is mudde ko poori gambhirata se rakhein — toh Counsel Aarav, please aap apna paksh shuru karein.
My lord, main yeh submission karta hoon ki teen saal ki practice ki sharti entry-level judges ke liye Article 14 ka seedha ullanghan hai — kyunki yeh ek aisi classification hai jisme intelligible differentia toh dikhti hai, lekin judicial efficiency ke core objective se uska rational nexus bilkul sabit nahi hota. Article 14 ke under jo 'manifest arbitrariness' ka doctrine hai — Shayara Bano mein jo sthaapit hua — woh aise rules ko void karta hai jo bina kisi thos aadhar ke candidates ka ek poora varg kaat dete hain. Teen saal ki practice na ho, toh aap judge nahi ban sakte — yeh rule meritorious law graduates ko constitution ke hi protection se bahar kar deta hai, jo Article 13 ke under clearly void hone ki shakl leti hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 14; Constitution of India · Article 13
My lord, main yeh clearly kehna chahti hoon ki teen saal ki practice ki shart na sirf ek reasonable classification hai, balki yeh ek zaruri safeguard hai jo nyaya-pranali ki gunvatta aur public confidence ke liye bilkul avashyak hai — Article 14 khud kahta hai ki intelligible differentia ka rational nexus hona chahiye object ke saath, aur yahan woh nexus bilkul spasht hai. Paksh ka yeh kehna ki shart arbitrary hai, galat hai, kyunki State ke paas yeh constitutional authority hai ki woh ek aisi classification kare jo competent judiciary ensure kare. Article 39A ke tahat State ka yeh dayitva bhi hai ki ek aisi legal system bane jo justice ko real aur effective banaye — aur bina practical experience ke naye judge us standard ko poora nahi kar sakte.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 14; Constitution of India · Article 39A
My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki teen-saal ki practice requirement ek reasonable classification hai — lekin main poochhunga: intelligible differentia ka rational nexus kahan hai? Article 14 sirf classification nahi, manifest arbitrariness bhi rokta hai — Shayara Bano mein yahi kaha gaya tha. Ek meritorious law graduate jo directly judicial services pass kare, usse teen saal tak rok dena na sirf arbitrary hai, balki Article 14 ke seedha khilaf hai — aur A1 ke tehet aisi rule void hogi inkonsistency ki had tak.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 14; Constitution of India · Article 13
My lord, paksh ne Article 14 ki baat ki — lekin Article 14 khud kehta hai ki reasonable classification allowed hai, jab intelligible differentia aur rational nexus ho; teen saal ki practice yahi kaam karti hai — judicial temperament aur courtroom exposure ko ensure karti hai, jo ek raw graduate mein nahi hoti. Aur main yeh bhi kehna chahti hoon ki A5 mein West Bengal Civil Service structure dekhen — entry level se senior level tak saalon ka experience required hai, yeh state bhi maanti hai ki judicial seniority aur experience bina zimmedari nahi di ja sakti. Isliye yeh rule Article 14 ka ullanghana nahi, balki uski hi spirit hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 14; West Bengal Civil Service ( Judicial ) And The West Bengal Higher Judicial Service ( Revision Of Pay And Allowance ) Act, 2003 · Section 3-2
Theek hai, dono counsels ka main ab closing summary pesh karungi. Petitioner ki taraf se yeh argument aaya ki teen-saal ki practice condition Article 14 ke under manifest arbitrariness hai aur fresh law graduates ke saath ek aisi classification hai jiska rational nexus judicial quality se nahi banta; jabki respondent ki taraf se yeh stand raha ki practical court exposure ek intelligible differentia hai jo public interest mein justified hai, aur West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) Act jaisi state legislations bhi graduated experience requirements ko valid maanti hain. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki legislature is rule ko revisit kare — ek structured, time-bound internship ya mentorship program mandatory karke entry barrier ko replace kiya ja sakta hai, jisse Article 14 ka rational nexus bhi bana rahe aur meritorious candidates ke liye doors bhi khule rahein; ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko apni samajh ke hisaab se rate karein aur apna vichar share karein.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 14; West Bengal Civil Service ( Judicial ) And The West Bengal Higher Judicial Service ( Revision Of Pay And Allowance ) Act, 2003 · Section 3-2