ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA, 2025

Image Source: livelaw.in

Facts of the Case

In the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, a batch of interlocutory applications was heard before the Supreme Court of India, with its judgment delivered on 20th May, 2025 by Justice B.R. Gavai. These applications raised fundamental issues relating to the qualification, promotion, and selection processes of candidates aspiring to enter judicial services as Civil Judge Junior Division and Higher Judicial Service cadres.

The proceedings form part of a long-standing series of judgments by the Supreme Court concerning judicial appointments, namely the first All India Judges Association (AIJA) case (1991) which led to the constitution of the first National Judicial Pay Commission commonly known as the Shetty Commission. The third AIJA case (2002), in which the court mandated two methods of promotions, i.e. 50% promotion from Civil Judge Senior Division based on merit cum seniority and passing suitability test and 25% by strictly on merit of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) with not less than five years of service.

The 2002 judgment also removed the requirement of three years of minimum practice for fresh law graduates for entering the Civil Judge Junior Division, recommending 1-2 years of training instead. Following, there was a fourth AIJA case (2010), which changed the quota to 25% direct recruitment, 65% regular promotion, and 10% LDCE, and then a fifth AIJA case in 2025 about LDCE requirements in Delhi judicial services only.

The current applications seek various reliefs, including clarification on LDCE quota calculation, restoration of the LDCE quota to 25%, modification of LDCE eligibility conditions, introduction of a suitability test, and mandating three years of minimum practice before sitting for the exam of Civil Judge Junior Division.

Rationale

The rationale for the restoration of practice is, that the Court strongly agrees with the majority of High Courts that the experiment of recruiting fresh law graduates without any prior practice has been unsuccessful over the last two decades. Practical experience as a lawyer is considered essential because it provides first-hand experience of the court system, its workings, and also the administration of justice.

Such experience, according to the court, cannot be adequately substituted by theoretical knowledge or pre-service training. These can only be acquainted with the procedural intricacies or court decorum, along with the roles of various stakeholders, including the bar. It brings maturity and sensitivity to a human problem, which is crucial while dealing with a litigant's life, liberty and reputation.

The provisional registration legally entitles a candidate to practice within their home state. To address concerns that a candidate might obtain provisional registration without actual practice, thus, to curtail that, requiring a certificate from senior advocates, having a minimum of ten years of experience, endorsement by principal judicial officers, and recognition of experience gained as law clerks with judges or judicial officers were introduced.

Defects Of the Judgement

The intention of three year practice rule is to ensure judicial maturity, but the impact causes a violation of Article 14, where an unreasonable classification is made without a rational objective. In countries like the UK and Australia, senior barristers have a cap on the number of cases that they can take; any case above that limit must be delegated to the juniors. Such practises create opportunities for junior advocates to grow and gain exposure to build their independent professional competence.

Despite constitutional equality, the ground reality is that in a system that already denies equal opportunity, a rule like this only deepens injustice. High-stakes litigation or travel-based litigation often goes to males due to logistical excuses or security concerns, and on the other hand, women are assigned clerical or supportive work.

Inference

Through this judgment, the Supreme Court aims to reform the selection and promotion processes in the Indian Judicial Services landscape to ensure efficient and practically skilled judicial officers.

From the extensive feedback from different High Courts about the challenges posed by inexperienced recruits, the court decided that prior practice is indispensable for entry in judicial services, thereby reintroducing practical experience for recruits.

It requires a minimum of three years of legal practice for candidates who want to appear for the exam of Civil judge (Junior Division), and this period would be counted from the date of provisional enrolment with the Bar Council. Moreover, the newly appointed civil judges must undergo one year of compulsory training before presiding in court.

This court judgment is crafted to identify the flaws in the current system by providing necessary and precise changes to be implemented to build a judiciary that is not just academically sound but also practically sharp and deeply sensitive to the real-world problems of justice.

Abhishek Gope is a BA LLB (Hons) Student at Chanakya National Law University, Patna