FACTS
The case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025) is the latest chapter in a judicial saga that has been unfolding since 1989. The All India Judges Association (AIJA), representing the subordinate judiciary, initially moved the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking comprehensive reforms in the service conditions of judicial officers. Over the decades, this litigation evolved into a continuing mandamus, with the Court issuing directions on pay scales, infrastructure, and recruitment policies across several landmark decisions.
In the 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai along with Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, considered a series of interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners and other stakeholders. The petitions raised questions about entry-level qualifications for judicial service, promotion mechanisms through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), and suitability tests for higher judicial service.
The petitioners urged the revival of the mandatory three-year practice at the Bar as a prerequisite for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division), along with the restoration of the 25% quota for District Judge promotions through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). They further sought the introduction of an objective suitability test for candidates being considered under the 65% merit-cum-seniority promotion channel.. The Union of India and several State Governments, however, opposed some of these demands, citing administrative difficulties, equity concerns, and the risk of discouraging young law graduates.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 20 May 2025, recalibrating the standards of judicial recruitment and promotion with far-reaching implications for the subordinate judiciary.
ISSUES RAISED
The Court identified the following key issues that need to be addressed:
- The central question is whether the quota reserved for promotions to the Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre) through the LDCE should be enhanced from the present 10% to 25%.
- Whether the minimum qualifying experience required to appear in LDCE should be lowered, and if so, by what amount.
- The question under consideration is whether a separate promotional quota should be introduced for highly proficient Civil Judges (Junior Division) so as to enable their faster elevation to the Senior Division.
- Whether, if such a quota is introduced, there should be a minimum service requirement for eligibility.
- The question arises as to whether the LDCE quota should be determined concerning the overall cadre strength or calculated based on the vacancies arising each year.
- Whether a suitability test should be implemented for promotions to the District Judge cadre under the 65% merit-cum-seniority quota.
- Whether the three-year Bar practice requirement for entry into the Civil Judge (Junior Division) should be reinstated, as it was previously removed in earlier rulings.
- If the condition is reintroduced, the issue to be addressed is whether the period of legal practice should be computed from the date of provisional enrollment or from the point of clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
CONTENTIONS
- Petitioners (All India Judges Association and Supporters):
- Argued that fresh law graduates lacked practical exposure and maturity, making it essential to restore the three-year Bar practice requirement before appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
- Claimed that reducing the LDCE quota to 10% in the 2010 ruling created stagnation and diluted merit-based promotions. Reinstating the quota at 25% would serve as a motivation for younger judicial officers, encouraging them to enhance their performance.
- Insisted that suitability tests for candidates under the 65% promotion quota were necessary to ensure that only competent and efficient officers entered the cadre of District Judges.
- Respondents (Union of India and State Governments):
- Expressed concerns that a mandatory three-year practice requirement might deter talented young graduates, especially from marginalized backgrounds, from choosing the judicial service.
- Highlighted that in many States, even after five years of service, judicial officers were already entitled to promotion, thereby undermining the incentive element of LDCE.
- Warned that restoring the LDCE quota to 25% could result in unfilled vacancies, as seen in earlier years, potentially impairing judicial administration.
- Opposed uniform suitability tests, arguing that they could introduce subjectivity and undermine seniority-based progression.
RATIONALE
The court’s judgment reflects a thoughtful balance between various interests: preserving the quality and professionalism of the judiciary while ensuring that the system remains accessible and fair.
- Restoration of LDCE Quota: The Court restrained the LDCE quota to 25%, highlighting that this measure would motivate qualified officers and prevent a slowdown in their career advancement. At the same time, it made clear that any post not filled under this quota should move to the regular promotion process in the same year, thus avoiding the creation of job vacancies.
- Reduction in Minimum Experience for LDCE: Taking into account the practical difficulties faced, the Court reduced the minimum experience criterion from five years of service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to three years, with a total minimum of seven years of judicial service across both Junior and Senior Divisions. This change ensures that officers can reasonably benefit from quicker promotions.
- Quota for Meritorious Civil Judges (Junior Division): The Court established a 10% quota for outstanding Civil Judges (Junior Division), enabling their promotion to the Senior Division through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). This initiative serves as an incentive for junior judges to excel in their early careers, supporting the broader objective of cultivating excellence in their judiciary.
- Calculation of Quota Based on Cadre Strength: The Court ruled that allocation of quotas should be based on the strength of the cadre rather than the number of vacancies each year. This approach ensures consistency across different states and prevents manipulation that could occur due to inconsistent vacancy reporting.
- Suitability Test for Promotions: The Court required that promotions under the 65% merit-cum-seniority quota undergo a suitability test designed by each High Court. These tests should assess:
- the quality of judgments given,
- Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs),
- case disposal rates,
- any pending disciplinary actions, and
- performance in oral examinations.
- Restoration of Three-Year Bar Practice Requirement: Perhaps the most significant decision was the reinstatement of the three-year mandatory bar practice requirement for recruitment as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Court explained that theoretical knowledge alone is insufficient; practical experience is essential to develop judgment, ethics, and courtroom maturity. The court supported this decision by referring to similar practices in countries like the UK, the US, and Germany.
- Recognition of Clerkships: Importantly, the Court clarified that judicial clerkships and other legal roles that involve meaningful legal work can count towards the bar practice requirement. This ensures that the system remains inclusive and recognizes the changing nature of legal careers.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Despite its comprehensive reasoning, the judgment highlighted certain defects in existing legal frameworks that had necessitated judicial intervention:
- Inconsistency in State Rules: Different States prescribed varying eligibility requirements, creating confusion and inequity.
- Stagnation in Promotions: The 2010 reduction of the LDCE quota to 10% had led to career stagnation, diminishing motivation among younger judges.
- Absence of Uniform Suitability Tests: Promotions under the merit-cum-seniority quota were largely mechanical, often failing to reflect competence.
- Erosion of Practical Training: The earlier removal of the Bar practice requirement led to the induction of “raw graduates” into the judiciary, which the Court found detrimental to justice delivery.
- Administrative Vacuum: Lack of guidelines on whether provisional enrollment or AIBE qualification should be considered for practice years created unnecessary ambiguity.
INFERENCE
The 2025 judgment represents a decisive moment in judicial service reform in India. Through the reintroduction of the three-year Bar practice requirement, the revival of the LDCE quota, and the implementation of suitability assessments, the Supreme Court has aimed to strengthen the subordinate judiciary by fostering greater professional maturity, accountability, and merit-based advancement.
At the same time, the ruling raises challenges of access and equity. Young graduates from less privileged backgrounds may struggle to sustain years of low-paying practice. Similarly, suitability tests, if not standardized, could create room for arbitrariness.
Ultimately, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s determination to strengthen its institutional foundations. Yet, its successful implementation will depend on State Governments, High Courts, and the Bar Council developing supporting mechanisms, structured clerkship programs, stipends for young advocates, transparent suitability tests, and robust judicial academies.
If executed thoughtfully, this decision has the potential to transform the subordinate judiciary, restore public faith in the system, and serve as a model for future reforms.
Authored by:
Taranbir Singh
Nancy College of Law,
Samana.
(taranbirs17@gmail.com)