The Calcutta Weekly Notes February 28 1949

Our correspodent has of course made a most handsome reference to the general ipartiality of our editorial notes but he has expressed himself unequivocally in diSapproval of our preference for the apointment of members of the Bar rather than of members of the subordinate judciary as Judges of the high Court. [...] But there is no geting away from the fact that the English system does have the two merits of first ensuringtbat the Bench has the respect of the advocates who appear before it as well as of the general public and second of preventing the members of the Bench from acquiring the dogmatic habit of mind that a long enjoyment of judicial authority does tend to induce. [...] " With all their considerable qualifications members of the subordinate judiciary do not for no fault of their own happen to have that kind of experience that it is very necessary for a High Court Judge to possess." In our humble view your very fair rcognition of the merits of the members of the subordinate judiciary if followed tip logically would point to the very conclusion which you hav [...] But have not the members of the subordinate judiciary as much claim upon you as the editor of a reputed legal journal as the members of the profession? [...] XVII p. 81 by Sir Earnest Trevelyan Kt.: The greater number of important civil cases are now tried by Indian Subordinate Judges and the reports of decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council show that fr cluently the opinion of a single Subordinate Judge is preferred to that of the Judges of th; High Court in appeal over him." In the same connection we cannot also resist the