Author: Krutika Patil, REVA University.
Case Title: All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
Bench: B.R. Gavai (CJI), Augustine George Masih (J), K. Vinod Chandran (J) Date of Judgment: 20th May 2025.
To the Point
The All India Judges Association vs Union of India consists of issues that have been discussed over the years. This case has brought about a significant changes to the structure and recruitment process of the judicial service in India.
In the 1991 judgment the Supreme Court of India directed the government to set up the first national judicial pay commission in 1996 , headed by Justice K.J. Shetty—commonly known as the Shetty Commission. The objective was to inspect the service condition of the lower judiciary.
Then in the year 1993, the apex court noted that at least three years should be the norm for entry into judiciary service. It was later realised that such a mandate would be discouraging to the young lawyers. One might consider private practice to be more attractive.
The Shetty commission, after various rounds of discussion with stakeholders, recommended that the three year practice requirement be done away with so as to attract the young aspiring individuals. Along with that the committee proposed that recruitment to the the Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre) be carried out with 25% of the vacancies filled by direct recruitment from advocates and the remaining 75% through promotion. The Shetty Commission submitted its report in 1999, and its recommendations were considered in the Supreme Court’s 2002 judgment.
The supreme court in 2002, considered the recommendations and adopted them, provided they underwent one to two years of mandatory training. For promotion to Higher Judicial Service, the Court structured the 75% quota into two parts: 50% through merit-cum-seniority with a suitability test, and 25% through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for Civil Judges (Senior Division) with at least five years of qualifying service. It also instructed High Courts to develop appropriate assessments for evaluating the continued competence of judges.
In the 2010 judgment, the Supreme Court reviewed the implementation of the earlier directions and noted a significant number of vacant posts in the 25% LDCE quota. To address the imbalance and ensure efficiency in appointments, the Court reduced the LDCE quota from 25% to 10%.
The current standing , in 2025 has overturned the previous decision made in the 2010 judgement.
Abstract
The batch of applications have raised issues pertaining to the qualifications, promotion and selection of candidates who want to enter as civil judge. The hearing sought for the relief of clarifying the quota for LDCE,method of regular promotion, whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the aforesaid examination needs to be reduced, introduction of the suitability test, restoration of three year practice or appropriate years needs to be determined. The court has heard the issues and considered the recommendation of appointed amicus curie to further facilitate the case. This landmark case has laid down the mandated years of three years of practice causing the members of the law fraternity to redirect and reevaluate their plans. This mandate has caused an uproar among the practicing young lawyers and the aspiring students who want to be judges.
Use of Legal Jargon
Cadre Strength refers to the total sanctioned number of posts in a particular judicial rank. The 2025 judgment clarifies that quota calculations (like for LDCE) must be based on cadre strength, not on yearly vacancies.LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) is a fast-track channel for judicial promotions, especially from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge or from Junior to Senior Division.Merit-cum-Seniority establishes a standard for promotion combining professional performance and seniority. The Court mandated a suitability test under this standard to ensure that promotions are merit-based and not automatic.Suitability Test is An evaluative mechanism including performance reports (ACRs), legal knowledge, and court conduct, designed to maintain the quality of judges elevated through the merit-cum-seniority route.
Provisional Enrolment is the Registration of a law graduate with a State Bar Council, enabling them to begin practice before passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The 2025 judgment affirms that practice starts from the date of provisional enrolment, not AIBE clearance.Feeder Cadre is the The rank from which promotion is considered. For example, Civil Judges (Senior Division) form the feeder cadre for District Judge appointments through LDCE or merit-cum-seniority.
The Proof
“We hold that the 3 years minimum practice requirement to appear for civil judges junior division exam is restored.” The criteria for the appointment of judges is mentioned in the constitution of India. The power appoint the civil court judges other than district Judges is given to the High Court. Article 124 i.e. Article 124(2) , 124(3) mentions the appointment as judge of supreme court. There is no specified minimum age; instead, there is a requirement for a certain number of years of practice. Article 217 outlines the process for appointing high court judges. Article 233 of the Constitution addresses the appointment of District Judges. According to Article 233, the appointment of individuals to the position of District Judge, as well as their posting and promotion, shall be conducted by the Governor of the state in consultation with the High Court that has jurisdiction over that state. This article also stipulates that an individual is eligible for appointment as a District Judge only if they have completed seven years of practice as an advocate. Notably, the Constitution does not set a minimum age limit for the appointment of District Judges. However, in nearly all states, the minimum eligibility criteria to apply for the position of District Judge include being at least 35 years old and having seven years of practice as an advocate.
Case Laws
1.TARAK SINGH Vs JYOTHI BASU (2005) 1 SCC 201
“Integrity stands as the defining characteristic of Judicial Discipline, distinguishing it from other fields. It is imperative that the judiciary exercises the highest level of diligence to ensure that the temple of justice remains intact, as any internal fissures could precipitate a disaster within the Judicial-delivery system, ultimately undermining public trust in the system. It is crucial to acknowledge that the woodpeckers within present a more significant danger than the external storm.”
2.Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008) 17 SCC 703
In this order, the Supreme Court reviewed the status of judicial appointments and vacancies in the subordinate judiciary across various states, with specific focus on the High Courts of Kerala and Jammu & Kashmir. The matter arose as part of ongoing proceedings in the All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India case, which has consistently addressed issues related to the timely recruitment and service conditions of judicial officers. The overall focus of the Court was on ensuring that vacancies in the subordinate judiciary were not left unfilled due to procedural delays, and that all High Courts complied with constitutional and judicial directions related to recruitment.
Conclusion
In the 2025 judgment of All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India, the Supreme Court restored the LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) quota to 25%. The Court noted that LDCE promotes merit and efficiency. To prevent unfilled posts, it directed that unused LDCE seats revert to the regular promotion quota in the same year. The eligibility for LDCE was also revised—three years in Senior Division or seven years of total judicial service—making the exam more accessible before regular promotion becomes available.
To address stagnation, the Court introduced a new 10% LDCE quota for Junior Division judges with at least three years’ service to enter the Senior Division on merit. It also clarified that the LDCE quota should be calculated based on cadre strength, not yearly vacancies, ensuring consistency nationwide. Promotions under the 65% merit-cum-seniority quota must now include a formal suitability test assessing legal knowledge, performance, and ACRs.
Importantly, the Court reinstated the three-year Bar practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment, citing concerns about the maturity and readiness of direct law graduates. Finally, it held that practice should be counted from the date of provisional enrolment as an advocate, not from the AIBE qualification date, since provisional enrolment allows actual court practice.
FAQS
1..From when is this rule applicable?
The Court has mandated that this requirement will be applicable to all forthcoming recruitment cycles, excluding any ongoing or previously announced recruitment processes.States and High Courts have been directed to revise their judicial service regulations accordingly.
2. Can the time served as a law clerk be included in the three-year count? Indeed, the Supreme Court has allowed the duration spent as a law clerk to be considered as part of the three-year requirement, as long as it is substantive and appropriately certified. This encompasses clerks who have collaborated closely with judges on research, managing case files, and drafting orders.
3.When does the period of enrollment start?
The three-year duration will be calculated from the date of your provisional enrolment as an advocate with the State Bar Council, rather than from the date you pass the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). This indicates that your litigation experience begins to accumulate as soon as you are enrolled—even prior to the announcement of your AIBE results.
4.What were the previous cases before this ?
First AIJA Case (1991) Second AIJA Case (1993) Third AIJA Case (2002) Fourth AIJA Case (2010) Fifth AIJA Case (2022) Each of these cases influenced judicial service reforms, culminating in the 2025 ruling, which acts as a thorough reassessment of those directives.
REFERENCES
https://www.barcouncilofindia.org/info/aibe
https://24law.in/story/all-india-judges-association-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-others-why-the-sc-restored-the-three-year-experience-for-civil-judge-and-magistrates
https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2025/05/20/sc-restores-mandatory-3-year-legal-practice-requirement-for-judicial-service-aspirants.html
https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/wpc-6432015-1685982.pdf
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/jude-mendes-v-union-of-india-caa-citizenship-pakistani-national-christian-1580807
