New Delhi: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a statement saying that they are likely to amend the Advocates Act to include a clause of “mandatory experience” that new lawyers will need if they wish to practice in the higher courts.The BCI said that any new lawyer should have practiced for at least two years in a district or taluka court, before practicing in any the high court of any state. And a lawyer wanting to practice in the Supreme Court and would need to have practiced for two years in any high court before that.According to a statement from the BCI, the decision was taken “in light of suggestions made by” the new Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, at a recent public function where he appeared along with Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and other top lawyers and judges.The new rules, if formulated, will mean that a new lawyer looking to break into high court practice will need to show a certificate which will have to be issued by an older advocate with at least 15 years of experience at the Bar, as well as the district judge, that certifies that the young lawyer had practiced in a district or taluka court for at least two years.Also read: Bar Council Ignored Proof to Say Lawyers Didn’t Obstruct Kathua ChargesheetThe BCI further said that no high court bar association should give membership to any young lawyer if they do not produce this certificate of mandatory two years’ experience.Likewise, a lawyer wanting to practice in the Supreme Court will need to produce an experience certificate from a high court bar association and the high court’s Registrar General. The BCI is also mulling whether to call for a rule on a minimum number of “appearances” that a lawyer who has practiced in the High Court needs to make, in order to get this certificate.These rules are likely to come into effect in about four months, by March 2020, and will be applicable to all new entrants to the profession who qualify for the Bar exam. It will be done by amending the Advocates Act and exercising current powers listed in Section 7 and 49 of the Act.Similar to the medical field, the council is also looking to make it compulsory for advocates with 10 years of practice, to undergo ‘continuous legal education’. An advocate will need to have undertaken at least 40 days of training over the course of five years.Venugopal had also spoken at this recent public function adding that the age of retirement for judges should be made 68 or 70 years. The Bar Council has agreed to the suggestion, saying that this has been one of their longstanding demands as well. But the council said that if the age of retirement is increased, then judges should not be given any post-retirement postings in commissions, tribunals or boards. These postings should instead be given to deserving lawyers only.Also read: First, They Came For the Lawyers…The BCI said it is also looking into the issue of having a minimum number of years of experience for judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. Previously, a lower level judicial officer needed three years of experience at the bar in order to be eligible to be an officer. The Supreme Court, however, removed this requirement in a judgment.However the BCI has held that “the Bar and litigants are facing a lot of problems due to lack of experience of the newly appointed judicial officers or munsifs and magistrate. Their training in judicial academies will prove insufficient, unless they get experience at the Bar.” On this, the BCI is planning to file for a review of the Supreme Court judgment that struck down this minimum experience requirement for judicial officers.On November 22, a 21-year-old man in Jaipur was announced “India’s youngest judge” after having cleared the necessary exams to be a judge in a lower court. He started his five year law degree in 2014, graduated this year, and with no experience as a practicing lawyer, is set to become a judge at a lower court.“I could appear in the exam only because the minimum age was reduced. Had it not been so then I would not have been eligible,” he told ANI.
