ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA, 2025

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA, 2025

Case Title and Citation: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2025 INSC 735 (Dated: May 20, 2025) (In I.A. No.93974 OF 2019 IN Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 OF 1989)

Factual Background

This batch of applications arose within the long-running litigation concerning the service conditions, qualifications, and promotion policies within the Indian Judicial Services. The Supreme Court had previously, in the “Fourth AIJA Case” (2010), reduced the quota reserved for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre) from 25% (as fixed in 2002) to 10%. This reduction was made because many High Courts found it difficult to fill the original 25% quota, leading to vacant posts. Subsequently, applications were filed seeking to restore the LDCE quota back to 25% and to address eligibility requirements to ensure full utilization. The Court also addressed the removal of the requirement for minimum practice for entry-level judges (Civil Judge (Junior Division)), a change implemented following the “Third AIJA Case” (2002), as experience over two decades suggested this relaxation was unsuccessful.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the 10% quota reserved for LDCE for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre) should be restored to 25%.
2. Whether the minimum qualifying experience required for appearing in the LDCE for Higher Judicial Service needs to be reduced.
3. Whether a specific quota should be reserved for accelerated promotion of meritorious candidates from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre.
4. Whether the requirement of having a minimum of three years of practice for appearing in the examination for Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was previously removed, needs to be restored.
5. If the minimum practice requirement is restored, whether the practice period should be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment/registration or the date of passing the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE).

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the applications and issued comprehensive directions modifying the rules governing promotion and entry into the Judicial Services. The Court restored the LDCE quota for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service to 25%. It reduced the minimum qualifying service for LDCE eligibility. Furthermore, the Court restored the requirement of a minimum of three years of practice for candidates aspiring to the entry-level post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

Reason for the decision

The rationale for the key decisions included:

1. Restoration of LDCE Quota: Restoring the LDCE quota to 25% provides a necessary incentive and opportunity for accelerated promotion to meritorious Judicial Officers in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre. To mitigate the risk of vacancies, the Court directed that any unfilled LDCE posts must revert to the regular promotion quota in the same year, preventing an adverse impact on judicial administration.
2. Reduction of LDCE Experience: The existing requirement of five years’ experience as Civil Judge (Senior Division) frustrated the purpose of accelerated promotion, as officers often became eligible for regular promotion in the same timeframe. To provide an actual incentive, the Court reduced the requirement of service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) to three years, provided the officer has a minimum cumulative total service of seven years as a Judicial Officer.
3. Incentive for Civil Judge (Junior Division): The principle of providing incentives to meritorious candidates should be extended to the lower cadres. Therefore, a 10% quota was introduced for accelerated promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) through an LDCE mechanism, requiring a minimum of three years’ service as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
4. Restoration of Minimum Practice: The recruitment of “raw graduates” without practical lawyering background over the last 20 years has not proved to be a successful experiment. High Courts reported that fresh graduates often lacked maturity, struggled with court decorum, and exhibited behavioral issues toward advocates and litigants. The experience of working in the court system, even minimally, is essential because a Judge must deal with questions of life, liberty, property, and reputation from the first day in office.
5. Calculation of Practice Period: The minimum three years of practice must be calculated from the date of the provisional enrolment/registration with the State Bar Council, rather than the date of passing the AIBE, to provide young law graduates with an opportunity to appear for the examination. Safeguards were imposed, requiring candidates to produce a certificate of actual practice, endorsed by a Principal Judicial Officer, to ensure the purpose of practical exposure is met.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court mandated significant structural amendments to the Judicial Services recruitment and promotion rules, prioritizing meritocracy through the expansion of the LDCE quota to 25% for the Higher Judicial Service and introducing a 10% LDCE quota for promotions to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre. Crucially, the Court restored the mandatory prerequisite of three years’ practice for entry-level Judicial Officers, finding that the absence of prior legal practice compromised the quality and efficiency of the judiciary. All High Courts and State Governments were directed to amend their service rules to reflect these changes within three months.