FACTS
In the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, a batch of interlocutory applications were heard before the Supreme Court of India with its judgement delivered on May 20, 2025 by Justice BR Gavai. These applications raise fundamental issues relating to qualification, promotion and selection processes of candidates aspiring to enter judicial services as Civil Judge Junior Division and Higher Judicial Service cadres. The proceedings are a continuation of long standing series of judgements by the Supreme Court concerning judicial appointments namely first AIJA case (1991) which led to the constitution of the first National Judicial Pay Commission called the Shetty Commision; the third AIJA case (2002) in which the court mandated two methods of promotions that is 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 5 years of service. Crucially, this judgement did away with the requirement of 3 years of minimum practice for fresh law graduates for entering Civil Judge Junior Division recommending 1-2 years of training instead. Then 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 2022 pertaining to 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 3 years of minimum practice before sitting for the exam of Civil Judge Junior Division.
ISSUES RAISED
The Supreme Court identified and addressed eight key issues out of which I will analyse two that are –
ISSUE 1 : Whether the requirement of having a minimum three years’ practice for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was done away with in the Third AIJA Case (2002), needs to be restored, and if so, by how many years?
ISSUE 2 : If the requirement of certain minimum years of practice for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination is restored, should the same be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment/registration or from the date of passing of the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE)?
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Most High Courts were in agreement that the earlier requirement of minimum 3 years’ experience at the Bar needs to be restored. The Andhra Pradesh, Gauhati, Karnataka High Court recommended 2 years. Patna, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Orissa, Madras, Uttarakhand HC recommended 3 years.Delhi HC recommended 1 year. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Gujarat recommended 2 years.
The reasons for restoration were that there is a lack of practical experience leading to difficulties in handling courts and procedural matters, behavioral problems towards advocates, litigants and staff like lack of maturity and unawareness of court decorum. Many stated that recruitment of “raw graduates” has not been a successful experiment. .
On the other hand, High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim and of Nagaland and Tripura opposed such minimum practice rule. Haryana State also opposed it but its High Court recommended 2 years. The Chhattisgarh State Government opposed it but its High Court recommended 3 years.
On Calculating Practice Period, Shri B.H. Marlapalle who was the Senior Counsel and Ms. Radhika Gautam who was the counsel for Bar Council of India recommended counting experience from the date of passing the AIBE. However,the State of Orissa, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Delhi High Court, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recommended counting from the date of provisional registration.
RATIONALE
The rationale for 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 the administration of justice. This experience cannot be adequately substituted by theoretical knowledge or pre-service training. One gets acquainted with the procedural intricacies, court decorum, and the roles of various stakeholders including the Bar.
It fosters maturity and sensitivity to human problems that are crucial when dealing with litigants’ life, liberty, property, and reputation. High Courts have reported behavioral and temperament issues among fresh recruits lacking practical exposure, including complaints of misbehavior towards advocates, litigants, and staff. Additionally, the reintroduction of this requirement aligns with constitutional provisions for higher judicial appointments that are 7 years for District Judges under Article 233(2) and 10 years for High Court Judges under article 217(2) that mandate prior legal practice.
The rationale for provisional registration for calculation is that the Court aims to strike a balance between ensuring minimum experience and providing opportunities for young, meritorious law graduates which is why counting from provisional registration allows for flexibility given varying university result declaration times which might affect AIBE appearance. It also acknowledges that provisional registration legally entitles a candidate to practice within the State.
To counter the concern that candidates might obtain provisional registration without actual practice, certain safeguards are introduced, such as requiring certificates from senior advocates (minimum 10 years standing) endorsed by Principal Judicial Officers, and considering experience gained as Law Clerks with Judges or Judicial Officers.
DEFECTS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- Concentration of Cases – The legal field suffers from a dearth of opportunity. Senior lawyers and their legal dynasties hold most of the work. Their close ones are preferred for case referrals. New entrants like first generation lawyers face an impenetrable wall of networks. This means that even if they practice, they do not really get any meaningful work. Even after 3 years they struggle with client access, proper exposure and substantial courtroom experience. This reflects that a formal requirement cannot really cure a structural exclusion, this only exacerbates frustration amongst young lawyers. Quality of practice varies, some juniors get to only do filing or secondary work and some second generation lawyers get to argue before the court. The intention of the 3 year practice rule may be to ensure judicial maturity but the impact causes a violation of Article 14 where an unreasonable classification without 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. This creates space for junior advocates to grow and gain exposure to build their independent practice.
- Exploitation by Unpaid Work – A critical defect in this judgement is that it does not acknowledge that interns or new advocates are expected to work without pay or for negligible stipends. All is done in the name of learning and gaining experience but will have zero financial independence. This is violative of Article 23 which prohibits forced labour, Article 21 that promises right to livelihood. A break down of the practical reality –
- Graduation (LLB) until the age of 24 where the person is financially dependent.
- Practice for 3 years from the age of 24 to 27 which is often unpaid or grossly under paid.
- Judiciary preparation and procedure for selection from the age of 27 to 28 which requires full time focus and hence no income.
- After entry into Judiciary that too if cleared from the age of 28 to 29, then there will be first the stable income.
This timeline is economically unstable for most aspirants, especially first generation lawyers, lower middle class people and women. A person is stuck between two boats: practice or preparation.
- Gendered Impact – While the rule is presented as neutral but its impact is anything but gender neutral. Despite constitutional equality, the ground reality is that in a system that already denies equal opportunity, a rule like this only deepens injustice. High stake litigation or travel based litigation often go to males due to logistical excuses or security concerns. Clerical or supportive roles are disproportionately assigned to women which means that even with 3 years of practice, it lacks courtroom depth. Additionally, women are burdened with societal expectations of getting married or having children because their biological clock is ticking. This punishes them for circumstances they did not create, delays their financial independence which may put them in a vulnerable position and discourage them from choosing law as a career.
- Academic Approach v. Practical Approach – One of the most glaring contradictions of the 3 year minimum practice rule is the disconnect between stated goal and the examination pattern. The judiciary exams demand heavy cramming of bare acts and case laws, long form theoretical answers and barely emphasises on drafting or actual litigation skills. If the system genuinely values courtroom experience then why is it not testing courtroom appropriate skills instead of blatant cramming.
- Breach of Audi Alteram Partem – The principle of Natural Justice of the right of all the parties to be heard was violated. Students who are the direct stakeholders of this decision were not represented or heard. The Bar and Bench work differently, instead of enforcing practice years, the judicial training period post selection can be increased.
INFERENCE
Through this judgement, 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 re-introducing practical experience for new recruits. It mandates a minimum 3 year practice for candidates wanting to appear for the exam of Civil Judge (Junior Division). This period will be counted from the date of provisional enrollment with the bar council.
Safeguards are put in place, requiring certification of practice by senior advocates and endorsement by Principal Judicial Officers, and also allowing experience as Law Clerks to be considered.
Alongside prior practice, the Court reiterates the importance of structured training, directing that newly appointed Civil Judges (Junior Division) must undergo at least 1 year of compulsory training before presiding in court. The court’s judgement is crafted to identify the fallacies in the current structure by providing necessary and precise changes to be implemented to build a judiciary that is not only academically sound but also practically astute and deeply sensitive to the real-world complexities of justice.
Name: Kanishka Sharma
College: University Institute of Legal Studies, Punjab University of Chandigarh