Court Details
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Honourable The Chief Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Honourable Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: May 20, 2025
Relevant Provisions/Statutes: Article 124, 217 and 233 of Indian Constitution, Rule 5(3)(i) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005
Brief Facts
The judgment arises out of several interlocutory applications filed in the constant lasting public interest petition of All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
These petitions have sought clarification, modification and further directions regarding recruitment, promotion and training of officers in the Subordinate Judiciary.
The All India Judge Association approached the Honourable Supreme Court pleading changes in the service conditions of the lower judiciary. Over the years, the Court has issued several directions on pay scales, infrastructure, and recruitment policies.
Issues
- Whether the LDCE quota for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service should be restored to 25% from earlier 10%.
- Whether the minimum qualifying service to appear in LDCE ought to be reduced, and if so, by how many years.
- Whether an incentive quota should be reserved for meritorious Civil Judges (Junior Division) to ascend to Civil Judge (Senior Division).
- If such a quota is created, the appropriate percentage and minimum qualifying service required.
- Whether LDCE quota should be calculated on overall cadre strength or only on vacancies of the particular recruitment year.
- Whether an eligibility test should be introduced for promoting Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge under the existing 65% merit and seniority channel.
- Whether the abolished requirement of three years’ practice at the Bar for initial recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) should be reinstated and, if so, for what duration.
- If practice is mandated, whether the period should be reckoned from provisional enrolment with a State Bar Council or from passing the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE).
Arguments
Petitioners – All India Judges Association
- Argued that reduction of LDCE quota to 10% by the Court’s 2010 order has frustrated the incentive for merit.
- Held that five-year qualifying service for LDCE is unrealistic because many officers obtain chronological promotion before completing that period.
- Urged introduction of merit-based promotional opportunities at earlier levels to maintain motivation.
High Courts and State Governments
- Divergent views: some High Courts like Chhattisgarh, Patna and Kerala supported returning LDCE quota to 25% while others like Gujarat, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh favoured retaining 10%.
- Several States and High Courts resisted shortening the five-year LDCE qualifying period whereas others recommended reducing it to two or three years.
- Except a few states, others vouched for reinforcing a minimum period of Bar practice (two or three years) for Civil Judge recruitment, citing difficulties faced with inexperienced graduates.
- However, some also cited it would push away new law grads, making the already low number of judges per person and discourage women.
- On vacancy calculation, most States preferred computing LDCE quota on total cadre strength rather than yearly vacancies.
Precedents Cited
- First AIJA Case (1991): This case laid the foundation for judicial pay and service restructuring leading to Shetty Commission.
- Second AIJA Case (1993): This judgement imposed minimum three-year bar practice for entry-level judges noting inadequacy of “raw graduates”.
- Third AIJA Case (2002): In this case Shetty recommendations were accepted, and a 50% merit-cum-seniority + 25% LDCE + 25% direct model was created along with abolishment of bar-practice prerequisite.
- Fourth AIJA Case (2010): This case reduced LDCE quota from 25% to 10% owing to long standing vacancies.
- Fifth AIJA Order (2022): This order set LDCE eligibility to 2 years Senior + 5 years Junior reduced from existing one. However, this was applicable to Delhi only.
Judgment
- The Supreme Court contended that current 10% quota neither incentivises merit nor fills vacancies adequately and increasing to 25% will motivate officers. Further, to prevent administrative disruption, reversion to regular promotion would happen if seats remain vacant.
- Accessing the data that showed LDCE eligibility currently coincides with or lags behind ordinary promotion, the Court decided to reduce minimum service in the Senior Division from five to three years, with an overall seven-year judicial service requirement.
- Applying the same reasoning to the lower cadre, the Supreme Court decided on reserving 10% of Senior Division posts for LDCE from Junior Division after three years’ service.
- Relying on uniformity and administrative clarity, the Court decided on computing LDCE quota on total cadre strength, that is already followed by a majority of States.
- The Court also reinstated Third AIJA requirement and directed High Courts lacking rules to craft comprehensive criteria that includes but is not limited to legal knowledge, judgments’ quality, ACRs, disposal rate, viva voce and practical skills.
- After observation of 20 years, evidences showed that the “raw graduates” face practical and behavioural shortcomings due to lack of courtroom familiarity. The Court therefore reestablished a three-year advocacy practice rule, that is to be counted from provisional bar enrolment, with safeguards that include certificates from senior advocates & judicial officers or credit for law-clerkship.
- The Court chose provisional enrolment date rather than AIBE pass date to avoid delaying candidates by exam cycles while still ensuring actual practice and experience.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court has reinstated the mandatory three-year practice rule before applying for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The Court affirmed that practical legal experience is one of the most important things for judicial competence and good working. It further added that appointing fresh law graduates without such experience has not only resulted in challenges in judicial administration but also High Court affidavits have identified this problem.
It stressed that the skills gained through court practice provide an understanding of the nature of judiciary to be able to fulfil the duties of a judge.
The Court also decided to continue the 25% LDCE quota for promotions, which is a means of encouraging merit and preserving the high standard of the subordinate judiciary.
Relevance
The 2025 ruling puts forward a data driven correction of policies experimented with since 2002. By blending the rigour of competitive selection with the requirement of professional experience, the Court hopes to strengthen the basic structure of the justice system that is its trial judiciary while also regaining confidence of litigants and the Bar Council.
The judgment lays down a well researched template likely to govern judicial service administration for the near future and serves as a model of cooperative federalism guided by the Supreme Court’s constitutional vision.
Critical Analysis
While this decision seems to be beneficial on the face of it, this can result in an unfair treatment to first generation law students, particularly women due to societal constraints.
This can also undermine judiciary with less people choosing the field due to the reinstated practice. Review petitions have also been filed in courts citing that this infringes the basic rights of Article 14 and 21.
Citations
- All India Judges Association vs Union Of India, 2025 INSC 735
- “From Classroom to Courtroom – Only After Practice”: Supreme Court Restores Bar-Practice Requirement and Expands LDCE Pathway in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), Casemine, May 2025, link
- Bhagyashri Premlal Jawarkar, Recalibrating the Bench: A Case Comment on All India Judges Association v. Union Of India, Vol (7) Iss 3, Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research (2025)
- Case Comment All India Judges Association vs Union Of India, Amikusqriae (2025), link
- INDIA CONST. art. 14, 21, 124, 217 and 233
- Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, Rule 5(3)(i)
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
