ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA

 

CASE NAME	ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION V UNION OF INDIA
CITATION	2025 SCO.LR 5(3)[15]
DATE OF JUDGMENT	20 MAY 2025
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION  AND OTHERS
RESPONDENT	UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
BENCH	B.R. GAVAI J, A.G. MASIH J, K.V. CHANDRAN J

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1. All India Judges’ Association Vs Union Of India On 13 November, 1991^[1]

Elements	Details
ISSUE	The All India Judges’ Association petitioned for uniform service conditions nationwide, including standardized retirement age, pay scales, residential accommodation, transport facilities, allowances, and training institutes for judicial officers across all states[2]
JUDGMENT	The Supreme Court recognized that judicial officers perform specialized work requiring unique qualifications and extended working hours beyond regular court time. The Court emphasized that “rendering justice is a divine act” necessitating worry-free mental conditions and adequate facilities for effective performance[3].
RATIO DECIDENDI	The judgment stressed that judicial officers must maintain conduct above reproach – being wise, courageous, conscientious, impartial, fearless of public clamor, and treating their appointment as a public trust without allowing personal interests to interfere with judicial duties[4].

2. All India Judges’ Association And Others vs Union Of India And Others^[5], 1993 (Review Judgment)

ELEMENTS	DETAIL
ISSUE	States/Union sought review of AIJA-I’s directions, objecting to financial burden and “parity” with executive pay[6].
JUDGEMENT	Most directions retained; Court clarified that parity is with the political executive, not the administrative executive, and reiterated need for a separate Judicial Pay Commission[7]
RATIO DECIDENDI	a)     Judicial officers exercise sovereign power; they are not “employees” and must not be yoked to executive pay scales. b)     Financial constraint is not a valid defence when constitutional rights to fair, timely justice are at stake[8]

3. All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India ^[9], 2002 ( Shetty Commission )

ELEMENTS	DETAILS
ISSUE	●      Whether Shetty Commission’s pay scale recommendations should be fully accepted ●      Whether Union of India must bear 50% financial burden for implementation ●      What modifications needed in retirement age, recruitment, promotion, housing, seniority, and cadre nomenclature ●      What systemic measures required to reduce case backlog and improve judge-population ratio[10]
JUDGEMENT	Writ petition allowed in part. Supreme Court: ●      Approved Shetty Commission recommendations with specified modifications ●      Directed States/UTs to implement revised pay scales at their own cost ●      Issued mandamus on recruitment, promotion, seniority, housing, and systemic expansion ●      Set compliance deadline: 30 September 2002 [11]
RATIO DECIDENDI	●      Uniform judiciary-specific pay structure essential for judicial independence and efficiency ●      States bear fiscal responsibility for their courts under constitutional division of power ●      Effective judicial functioning requires systemic reforms: clear recruitment timelines, higher judge-population ratio, removal of outdated eligibility barriers ●      Efficient subordinate judiciary part of Constitution’s basic structure[12]

4. All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India ^[13]; 28 April 2009 (  appointing committee)

ELEMENTS	DETAIL
ISSUE	Revise subordinate judiciary payment scales and pensions to maintain Justice Shetty Commission ratios following High Court judges’ salary increases.[14]
JUDGEMENT	a.)   Direct recruitment of district judges must retain written examination as mandatory requirement. Pending interlocutory applications adjourned to 28/07/2009. b.)   Single-member committee under Hon’ble Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.) established to recommend new pay scales, allowances, and perquisites based on Shetty report baseline, with report deadline of 20/07/2009 c.)   The Union Ministry of Law and Justice was instructed to provide Rs. 25 lakhs for the committee overseeing the reforms.[15]

5. All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India^[16]; 20 April, 2010 (Judgement)

ELEMENTS	DETAILS
ISSUES	Whether the 25% LDCE quota for District Judge promotion should be reduced due to vacancies and administrative challenges[17].
JUDGEMENT	Supreme Court (effective 1 January 2011) restructured District Judge appointments: ●       25% direct recruitment from Bar ●       65% regular promotion of Civil Judges ●       10% LDCE (reduced from 25%) LDCE quota reduction cited non-fulfilment and administrative inefficiency. Unfilled LDCE vacancies revert to regular promotion. High Courts directed to amend service rules and follow recruitment timelines per Malik Mazhar Sultan. [18]
RATIO DECIDENDI	The 25% LDCE quota was found to be ineffective due to unfilled vacancies, prompting a reduction to 10% to improve administrative efficiency. [19].

6. All India Judge’s Association v. Union Of India^[20]; 27 July 2022

ELEMENT	DETAIL
ISSUE	●      Implementation of SNJPC’s pay revision recommendations for judicial officers ●      Effective date and arrears payment modalities[21]
JUDGEMENT	●      SNJPC recommendations accepted with Pay Matrix Method ●      Phased payment – 25% + 25% + 50% over specified periods[22]
RATIO DECIDENDI	Judicial independence requires adequate and timely pay revision maintaining parity with political executive, not administrative executive.[23]

 

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ELIGIBILITY REQUIRES THREE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE;  [ ALL INDIA JUDGE’S ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA ^[24]ON 20 MAY 2025 ]

FACT OF THE CASE

This case addresses several interlocutory applications challenging the current system of judicial recruitment and promotion, particularly regarding eligibility for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts and promotions to Higher Judicial Services.

Specific Applications Filed

1. A. No.93974 of 2019 (West Bengal)

Sought clarification and restoration of 25% LDCE quota for District Judges, with an alternative proposal for 10% of annual vacancies

2. A. Nos. 72900, 40695 of 2021 & I.A. No.50269 of 2022

• Method of regular promotion through Objective Suitability Test
• Enhancement of quota percentage for accelerated promotion to District Judges

3. A. No. 73015 of 2021 (Bombay High Court)

• Modification to increase quota from 10% to 25% for accelerated promotion
• Stay on regular promotion until suitability test conducted

4. A. No. 201893 of 2022

• Amendment of LDCE eligibility conditions for all States/UTs
• Restore LDCE quota to 25% instead of 10%^[25]

ISSUES FRAMED

Eight Issue for Consideration:

1. Whether the current 10% quota for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre) through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) should be increased back to 25%, as originally directed in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247?
2. Whether minimum qualifying experience for appearing in LDCE examination needs to be reduced, and if so, by how many years?
3. Whether a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious candidates from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) to incentivize merit?
4. If yes, then What should be the percentage of such quota? And What should be the minimum experience as Civil Judge (Junior Division)?
5. Whether quota for departmental examinations should be calculated on Cadre strength, OR Number of vacancies occurring in particular recruitment year?
6. Whether suitability test should be introduced for promoting Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge against existing 65% quota for promotion based on merit-cum-seniority?^[26]
7. Whether requirement of minimum three years practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination (previously done away in All India Judges Association case) needs to be restored? If so, by how many years?
8. If minimum years of practice requirement is restored, should it be calculated from: Date of provisional enrollment / registration, OR Date of passing All-India Bar Examination (AIBE)?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

• The petitioner argues that the 5-year experience requirement for Civil Judge (Senior Division) promotions is overly restrictive and outdated, as several State Governments and High Courts advocate reducing it to 2-3 years to improve career progression.
• They contend that filling vacancies based solely on annual openings causes unnecessary delays and leaves posts vacant, instead of filling according to total cadre strength as supported by most States.
• The petitioner also urges that Bar Council of India’s two-year provisional registration rule should not block eligibility for judicial positions, advocating for a more flexible approach^[27].

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

• The respondent maintains that the 5-year requirement ensures judicial candidates have sufficient experience and maturity, cautioning that lowering it could harm quality and public trust in the judiciary.
• They argue that filling posts based on total cadre strength—rather than yearly vacancies—could lead to inefficiency and resource misuse.
• The respondent also supports reinstating prior legal practice as a prerequisite for the judicial exam, asserting that practical experience is vital for effective and responsible judging^[28].

JUDGEMENT

• The Court reinstated the 25% LDCE quota for promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Higher Judicial Service, with unfilled seats reverting to regular promotion within the same year to avoid delays.
• The eligibility for appearing in the LDCE was revised—requiring three years of service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and a combined minimum of seven years’ service in both Junior and Senior Divisions.
• A new 10% LDCE quota was introduced for promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Senior Division, requiring at least 3 years’ experience.
• LDCE quota calculations must be based on the total sanctioned strength of the cadre, rather than annual vacancy figures, to maintain consistency across all states.
• Regular promotions (65%) require comprehensive suitability assessments covering legal knowledge, judgment quality, performance records, disposal rates, viva voce, and communication skills.
• The 3-year prior practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam was restored, counted from provisional enrollment, with certification from senior judicial officers or advocates; law clerk experience is also accepted.
• Every newly appointed Civil Judge (Junior Division) is required to undergo one year of compulsory training before being assigned judicial duties.
• High Courts must amend their service rules within 3 months, and State Governments must approve these changes within an additional 3 months.^[29]

RATIO DECIDENDI

• The LDCE system is crucial for promoting merit-based competition and rewarding excellence within the judiciary, while upholding the subordinate judiciary as the justice system’s foundation.
• Practical court experience is indispensable for judicial competence, as theoretical knowledge or training cannot replace hands-on legal practice.
• A constitutionally balanced recruitment structure mandates specific proportions for direct recruitment, regular promotion, and LDCE to maintain administrative efficiency and judicial quality.
• Judicial promotions must be based on objective, multi-faceted assessments ensuring candidates meet minimum competency and performance standards.
• Uniform recruitment and promotion standards nationwide are necessary to preserve consistency and quality across all state judiciaries.^[30]

OBITER DICTA

• Recruiting fresh law graduates without prior court experience has historically failed, causing behavioural and temperament issues.
• LDCE aims not just to fulfill quotas but to foster genuine competition and professional growth among junior officers through merit.
• Strong subordinate judiciary requires better recruitment, training, and promotion to sustain justice administration.
• While modern legal education enhances readiness among graduates, it cannot replace the value of hands-on legal practice.
• States differ in LDCE success; flexible measures like reverting to regular promotions may be needed when merit-based fills fall short.
• Continuous judicial training is essential to ensure judges remain knowledgeable and effective throughout their service.^[31]

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20 May 2025 in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India introduced important steps aimed at improving the quality of judges in the subordinate judiciary. Measures like restoring the LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) quota to 25%, introducing detailed suitability tests for promotions, and strengthening judicial training programs reflect a clear intent to make judicial appointments more professional, merit-based, and efficient. These reforms are well-aligned with the broader goal of improving justice delivery and ensuring a more capable and accountable lower judiciary.

However, the part of the judgment that makes three years of Bar practice mandatory for candidates applying for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam raises several practical, legal, and social concerns. While practical experience is valuable, making it the only pathway to eligibility ignores several ground realities.

Firstly, the Court did not consider that today’s legal education—especially in five-year integrated courses—already includes courtroom training, internships, and compulsory practical exposure. Judicial academies are well-equipped to provide one to two years of post-selection training, which has proven effective in preparing new judges. The Shetty Commission, previously accepted by the same Court, had clearly stated that if proper training is given, prior practice is not essential^[32].

Secondly, this rule unfairly affects recent law graduates who were preparing under the earlier eligibility criteria, as there was no transition period provided. Forcing these graduates to now spend three more years in litigation simply to become eligible places an unreasonable burden on them and disrupts their career plans^[33].

Thirdly, this condition creates an invisible barrier for many first-generation lawyers, women, and candidates from weaker economic backgrounds. Many such aspirants cannot afford to survive financially while struggling to build a litigation career for three years, especially in the early, unpaid or low-paid phases. They often take up legal jobs in PSUs, law firms, or corporate offices, which involve real legal work but are now completely ignored under this rule. Excluding such candidates—who are competent and experienced in their own right—makes the system less inclusive and wastes valuable talent.

Legally, the rule also raises concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution. It treats fresh graduates and those with three years of practice as entirely different classes without any solid evidence or data to prove that the latter are better judges. In fact, many “fresh” recruits in past years have performed excellently after proper training. Without such proof, this classification appears arbitrary and cannot be justified as a reasonable restriction.

In addition, judicial officers are now selected through rigorous multi-stage exams and interviews. Calling them “raw” despite this process undermines the very system the Court has put in place.

Finally, imposing a uniform service rule across all States through judicial directions may overstep the boundaries set by the Constitution. Service rules fall under the domain of State governments and Public Service Commissions, and a one-size-fits-all approach may not work in a diverse federal structure like India^[34].

In conclusion, while the judgment rightly emphasizes better training, performance evaluation, and promotion systems to improve judicial quality, the three-year practice requirement does not align with the practical realities of modern legal education, the lived experiences of diverse candidates, or the spirit of constitutional equality. A more flexible, inclusive, and evidence-based approach would better serve both the judiciary and society.

[1] ALL INDIA JUDGES’ ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA; AIR 1992 SC 165

[2] Ibid <https://www.wbja.nic.in/wbja_adm/files/Writ%20Petition%20No.%201022%20of%201989,%20All%20India%20Judges%20Association%20Vs.%20Union%20of%20India%20and%20others >

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] All India Judges’ Association And Others vs Union Of India And Others; (1993) 4 SCC 288

[6] Ibid, < https://supremetoday.ai/issue/All-india-judges-association-vs-union-of-india >

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India ; (2002) 4 SCC 247

[10] Ibid, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adb5e4b01497114120ad

[11] Ibid, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adb5e4b01497114120ad

[12] Ibid

[13] All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India ; IA No. 244 in WP (C) No. 1022 of 1989

[14] Ibid,< https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea873d607dba382a078bb3 >

[15] Ibid

[16] All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India; (Record of Proceedings), IAs Nos. 227, 265 and IA No. in WP (C) No. 1022 of 1989 with Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 2006 and IA No. 208

[17] Ibid <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaa137607dba382a079e92 >

[18] Ibid <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaa137607dba382a079e92 >

[19] Ibid

[20] All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 2015

[21] Ibid ; https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/23229/23229_2015_1_17_36669_Order_27-Jul-2022.pdf

[22] Ibid ; https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/23229/23229_2015_1_17_36669_Order_27-Jul-2022.pdf

[23] Ibid

[24] All India Judge’s Association V. Union Of India; 2025 INSC 735 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(3)[15] <https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/three-years-of-practice-must-for-civil-judge-junior-division-eligibility-all-india-judges-association-v-union-of-india-eligibility-judicial-officers/ >

[25] “Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility”, ( Supreme Court Observer, 20 May 2025) <https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/three-years-of-practice-must-for-civil-judge-junior-division-eligibility-all-india-judges-association-v-union-of-india-eligibility-judicial-officers/ >

[26] Ibid

[27] All India Judge’s Association V. Union Of India; 2025 INSC 735 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(3)[15] <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17802623/ >

[28] Ibid , <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17802623/ >

[29] “Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility”, ( Supreme Court Observer, 20 May 2025) <https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/three-years-of-practice-must-for-civil-judge-junior-division-eligibility-all-india-judges-association-v-union-of-india-eligibility-judicial-officers/ >

[30] “Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility”, ( Supreme Court Observer, 20 May 2025) <https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/three-years-of-practice-must-for-civil-judge-junior-division-eligibility-all-india-judges-association-v-union-of-india-eligibility-judicial-officers/ >

[31] Ibid

[32] REVIEW PETITION NO. OF 2025 IN I.A. NO.93974 OF 2019 WITH I.A. NOS. 72900, 73015 AND 40695 OF 2021 WITH I.A. NOS.50269 AND 201893 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1022 OF 1989 <https://lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/FINAL-REVIEW-PETITION-ALL-INDIA-JUDGES-ASSOCIATION-CASE.docx-1.pdf >

[33] Ibid

[34] Ibid