Peshawar:
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government has amended the Judicial Service Rules, abolishing the long-standing requirement of two years of legal practice for appointment as a civil judge. The move, notified through an official notification, has sparked debate within legal circles, with the KP Bar Council strongly opposing the changes and demanding their withdrawal.
According to the notification, amendments have been made to Rule 5 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules. Under the revised rules, the condition of assessing seniority based on “cum-fitness” has been removed, and selection will now be made purely on merit. This change significantly alters the criteria and process for induction into the lower judiciary in the province.
One of the most notable changes is the elimination of the mandatory two-year advocacy experience previously required for candidates seeking appointment as civil judges. Earlier, law graduates were required to have at least two years of practical experience as advocates before becoming eligible for judicial service. With the new amendment, fresh law graduates will now be eligible to apply for civil judge positions without any minimum period of legal practice.
The notification further states that promotions within the judicial service will be carried out on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). It clarifies that regular promotions from Basic Pay Scale (BPS) 19 to BPS 21 will not be granted without the completion of the required length of service. This provision aims to ensure that higher judicial positions remain linked to experience and service record, even as entry-level requirements are relaxed.
In addition, the amended rules make it mandatory for judicial officers to complete prescribed training programs and pass relevant departmental examinations in order to qualify for promotion. The government has emphasized that these measures are intended to enhance professional competence and ensure that judges are adequately trained before assuming higher responsibilities.
Officials familiar with the amendments say the changes are aimed at attracting talented young law graduates to the judiciary and addressing delays in judicial appointments. They argue that early induction, followed by structured training and assessments, can help build a more efficient and modern judicial system. Supporters of the amendment believe that merit-based selection, combined with rigorous training, can compensate for the lack of initial courtroom experience.
However, the decision has drawn strong criticism from the legal community, particularly the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council. In a statement, the Bar Council rejected the new procedure for the appointment of civil judges, calling it detrimental to the quality and credibility of the judiciary. The Bar Council expressed serious concerns over appointing judges without practical legal experience, warning that it could negatively impact the administration of justice.
“The KP Bar Council rejects the new method of appointing civil judges,” the statement said. “The government should immediately withdraw its decision to appoint judges without any prior legal practice.” The Bar Council argued that courtroom experience as an advocate plays a crucial role in developing an understanding of legal procedures, evidence, and the practical challenges faced by litigants and lawyers.
Legal experts have also voiced mixed opinions on the amendment. Some senior lawyers believe that removing the advocacy requirement may weaken the judiciary at the grassroots level, as civil judges deal directly with trial proceedings, evidence, and day-to-day litigation. They argue that firsthand experience of legal practice helps judges better understand the realities of the justice system.
On the other hand, some analysts point out that many countries induct judges at an early stage of their careers and rely heavily on institutional training rather than prior advocacy experience. They suggest that if the Judicial Academy and training mechanisms are strengthened, young judges can be groomed effectively to perform their duties competently.
The development comes at a time when Pakistan’s judicial system is facing challenges related to case backlogs, shortage of judges, and delays in the dispensation of justice. The KP government appears to be exploring structural reforms to improve efficiency and fill vacant positions more quickly.
Despite the government’s rationale, opposition from the bar associations indicates that the issue is likely to remain contentious. Observers believe that continued dialogue between the government, judiciary, and legal fraternity will be necessary to address concerns and ensure that reforms strike a balance between efficiency, experience, and judicial independence.
