-
by Admin
15 December 2025 3:42 AM
"Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of court practice," Supreme Court of India, in a transformative judgment delivered in All India Judges’ Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989, addressed wide-ranging structural issues relating to the recruitment, promotion, and training of judges in the subordinate judiciary. A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, dealt with eight critical issues affecting the functioning of judicial services and delivered comprehensive directions with nationwide implications.
The Court’s main observations emphasized the necessity of restoring professional experience as a prerequisite for judicial appointments, incentivizing merit through competitive promotion, and ensuring objective assessments in internal promotions. Declaring that the earlier attempt to induct “raw law graduates” without practice experience has not succeeded, the Court ruled that judicial officers must be seasoned in the courtroom before being entrusted with decisions over life, liberty, and property.
The petition filed by the All India Judges’ Association has served for over three decades as the vehicle for judicial reforms in service conditions and structural organization of the judiciary. Previous decisions in this case – most notably those in 1991, 1993, 2002, and 2010 – have addressed pay scales, training, and cadre structuring. The current judgment responds to a series of interlocutory applications filed between 2019 and 2022 seeking reassessment of promotion quotas, entry-level eligibility, and the effectiveness of judicial administration reforms.
The focus of the present ruling is to revisit and correct the dilution of standards that had occurred due to the 2002 decision eliminating the bar practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) and reducing the merit-based promotional quota (LDCE) from 25% to 10% in 2010.
The Supreme Court framed and answered eight pivotal issues. Two central themes emerged: first, the need to reintroduce minimum bar experience for new judges, and second, the necessity of restoring competitive merit-based promotion opportunities within the judiciary.
While addressing the first issue on restoration of the 25% quota for LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) for promotion to the District Judge cadre, the Court referred to its earlier judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, where it had held:
“25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination.”
The Court noted that the subsequent reduction of the quota to 10% in 2010 had undermined this intent, observing:
“The very purpose of providing the channel of promotion through LDCE was to provide an incentive to officers among the relatively junior officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion.”
The Court ruled that restoring the 25% LDCE quota would incentivize excellence and ensure that meritorious officers have a meaningful opportunity to rise.
On the issue of eligibility experience, the Court recognized the difficulty caused by requiring 5 years of service as Civil Judge (Senior Division), especially in States where such officers already achieve promotion in 5 years, rendering them ineligible to benefit from LDCE. It held:
“There will be no actual incentive for a Judicial Officer to appear for LDCE... if a Judicial Officer even otherwise gets entry into the Cadre of District Judge after five years of service, the scheme of incentive is frustrated.”
Accordingly, the Court reduced the requirement to three years as Civil Judge (Senior Division), with a minimum of seven years combined experience in Junior and Senior Division.
The most groundbreaking part of the ruling, however, came in the restoration of the 3-year bar practice requirement for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
“Fresh Graduates Lacking Court Exposure Struggle to Deliver Justice”
The Court noted with concern the deterioration in court decorum and judicial competence due to direct recruitment of candidates fresh out of law colleges. It referred to multiple High Court submissions flagging serious concerns about the conduct, maturity, and procedural awareness of newly recruited judges without any practical exposure.
Rejecting the Shetty Commission’s rationale which had prompted the 2002 removal of the requirement, the Court stated:
“The recruitment of raw graduates as Judicial Officers without any training or background of lawyering has not proved to be a successful experiment.”
Reinforcing the logic of its 1993 ruling in the Second AIJA Case, the Court observed:
“To induct graduates fresh from the universities to occupy seats of such vital powers is neither prudent nor desirable… experience as a lawyer is essential to enable the Judge to discharge his duties and functions efficiently and with confidence and circumspection.”
On the issue of calculation of experience, the Court rejected the suggestion that bar experience should count only after passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). Instead, it ruled:
“The experience should be counted from the date on which provisional registration has been granted to a candidate.”
To address concerns about fake or inactive enrollments, the Court mandated certification of practice from a senior advocate with 10 years' standing, endorsed by a judicial officer. It further allowed law clerk experience to count towards the 3-year requirement.
Suitability Test and Promotion Based on Merit-Cum-Seniority
While reaffirming the 65% quota for regular promotion to the District Judge cadre, the Court emphasized that promotions must not be routine. Recalling its own language from 2002, the Court stated:
“There should be an objective method of testing the suitability of the subordinate judicial officers for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service.”
The judgment specified key indicators such as:
Incentive for Junior Judges: 10% LDCE for Promotion to Senior Division
Addressing career stagnation, the Court introduced a new 10% LDCE quota for promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division). Candidates with 3 years’ experience in the junior division would be eligible to compete.
“There is no reason why the incentive structure of LDCE, designed for District Judges, cannot be replicated for promotions within the civil judge cadres.”
The Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to:
“All amendments shall be carried out within three months by the High Courts and approved within a further three months by State Governments.”
Ongoing recruitment processes will continue under existing rules if initiated before the judgment date.
This landmark decision marks a comprehensive judicial restructuring, balancing the need for professional competence, practical experience, and merit-based advancement. The Supreme Court has issued binding directions that will transform the method of recruiting and promoting judicial officers across the country.
“The subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the judicial system. It is imperative that it becomes as strong as possible.”
By reinforcing professional experience, restoring merit quotas, and insisting on suitability assessments, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to a robust and efficient justice delivery mechanism.
Date of Judgment: May 20, 2025
