Holding

The Court directed that the LDCE quota be increased to 25%, the qualifying service for senior judges reduced to three years (with a total of seven years including junior service), 10% of senior posts be reserved for junior judges, quotas be calculated on cadre strength, a suitability test be framed with specified criteria, and a three‑year practice requirement for junior judges be reinstated, counted from provisional enrolment.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions filed by the All India Judges Association seeking clarification on the promotion and recruitment mechanisms in the judicial services, including the quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE), qualifying experience requirements, and suitability tests. The Court examined the historical evolution of the LDCE quota, noting that it was originally set at 25% but reduced to 10% due to implementation difficulties. After reviewing data and submissions from various High Courts and State Governments, the Court held that the LDCE quota should be restored to 25% and the minimum service requirement for senior judges reduced to three years, with a total of seven years of service required. It also directed that 10% of senior division posts be reserved for accelerated promotion of junior judges, that quotas be calculated on cadre strength, and that a suitability test consider specific performance factors. Furthermore, the Court reinstated a three‑year practice requirement for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam, to be counted from the date of provisional enrolment, and mandated related procedural safeguards. The Court issued comprehensive directions to amend service rules across all states and High Courts accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the 10% quota reserved for LDCE for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service should be restored to 25%
Whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the LDCE should be reduced, and if so, by how many years
Whether a quota should be reserved for meritorious candidates from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division)
What should be the percentage of such a quota and the minimum experience required for Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Whether the LDCE quota should be calculated on the basis of cadre strength or the number of vacancies in a recruitment year
Whether a suitability test should be introduced for promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge against the existing 65% merit‑cum‑seniority quota
Whether the requirement of a minimum three‑year practice for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination should be restored
If restored, whether the period of practice should be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment/registration or from the date of passing the All‑India Bar Examination

Legislation cited

Bar Council of India (Registration) Rules
Constitution of Indias. Article 124, s. Article 217, s. Article 233

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to restoration of 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-LDCE Judicial Service-cadre of District Judge, to 25%; reduction of the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in LDCE, and if so, by how many years; percentage of reservation of quota for meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division); the minimum

Subjects

JudiciaryJudicial serviceLimited Departmental Competitive ExaminationMinimum qualifying experience for LDCEMeritorious candidatePromotion quota based on merit‑cum‑seniorityMinimum three years practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division)First National Judicial Pay CommissionShetty CommissionIncentive to meritorious judicial officersAccelerated promotionCadre strengthJudicial AcademyLaw Commission of India 117th ReportMinimum three years practice as lawyerAppointment of fresh law graduatesSensitivity to human problemsBehavioural and temperamental problems of fresh law graduatesAIBEProvisional enrolment/registrationMofussil CourtPrincipal Judicial OfficerCertified by advocateDuly endorsed by Principal Judicial OfficerHigher Judicial ServiceCivil Judge (Junior Division)Civil Judge (Senior Division)Suitability testAdministration of justiceCadre of District JudgeReservation of quotaUpdated knowledge of lawQuality of judgmentsACRs of preceding five yearsDisposal rateViva voce performanceGeneral perceptions and awarenessCommunication skillsNo straight‑jacket formulaState Bar Council

Judgment

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1070 : 2025 INSC 735

All India Judges Association and Others
v.
Union of India and Others
(I.A. No. 93974 of 2019
With
I.A. No(s). 72900, 73015 and 40695 of 2021
With
I.A. No(s). 50269 and 201893 of 2022
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989)
20 May 2025
[B.R. Gavai, CJI,* Augustine George Masih and
K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to restoration of 10% quota reserved for Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination-LDCE for promotion to
Higher Judicial Service-cadre of District Judge, to 25%; reduction
of the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in LDCE, and
if so, by how many years; percentage of reservation of quota for
meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil
Judge (Senior Division); the minimum experience as a Civil Judge
(Junior Division); calculation of the quota to be reserved for the
said departmental examinations in a particular year on the cadre
strength or on the number of vacancies occurring in the particular
recruitment year; introduction of suitability test while promoting
the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Cadre of District Judges
against the existing 65% quota for promotion to Higher Judicial
Services on the basis of merit-cum-seniority; and restoration of the
requirement of having minimum three years practice for appearing
in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division), and calculation
of the same from the date of the provisional enrolment/registration
or from the date of the passing of the AIBE.

Headnotes†
Judiciary – Higher judiciary – Promotion to Higher Judicial
Service-cadre of District Judge – Quota reserved for Limited
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1071

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

Departmental Competitive Examination-LDCE – If 10% quota
reserved for LDCE for promotion to Higher Judicial Service-
cadre of District Judge, to be restored to 25% as determined
by this Court in ***All India Judges’ Association’s case –
Consideration:
Held: Quota of reservation for LDCE for promotion from the
cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial
Service increased to 25% – If quota of LDCE is restored to 25%
as originally recommended in the ***Third AIJA Case, which was
reduced to 10% in the ****Fourth AIJA Case, it would provide
an incentive amongst the officers in the Cadre of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), as also an opportunity to get accelerated
promotion in the cadre of District Judge if they are meritorious
and deserving – Sufficient number of Judicial Officers from the
Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) would be available who
would be eligible for appearing in LDCE – If, in a particular year
sufficient candidates are not selected from the LDCE quota, it
would be appropriate that such posts would revert back to the
regular promotion quota based on merit-cum-seniority, to be
filled up in the same year, and this would also ensure that no
prejudice would be caused to the regular promotees – Also, no
adverse impact on the administration of justice would occur.
[Paras 24, 27, 28, 89]

Judiciary – Higher judiciary – Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination-LDCE for promotion to Higher Judicial Service-
cadre of District Judge – Minimum requirement of having
experiance of 5 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) for
appearing in LDCE for Higher Judicial Service – Modification
of requirement:
Held: Minimum qualifying service required to appear in the LDCE
for promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to
the Higher Judicial Service reduced to 3 years’ service as a Civil
Judge (Senior Division) – Total service required to be undertaken,
including service rendered as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and
Civil Judge (Senior Division), set at a minimum of 7 years’ service –
Purpose behind providing a special quota for LDCE is to enable
the meritorious Judicial Officers to get accelerated promotion and
enter the Cadre of District Judge at an earlier point of time than
other less meritorious candidates. [Paras 40-42, 89]
1072 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judiciary – Subordinate judiciary – Promotion of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) –
Reservation of quota – Minimum experience as a Civil Judge
(Junior Division) – Requirement:
Held: 10% of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) be reserved for accelerated promotion of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) candidates through LDCE mechanism – Minimum
experience of a Judicial Officer in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) for appearing in such an examination should be 3 years –
Said system introduced so as to provide incentive at an earlier
promotion to the meritorious candidates working in the Cadre
of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Said seats would be filled up
through the same mechanism adopted for filling up the vacancies
reserved through LDCE for entry into the Cadre of District Judge.
[Paras 46, 89]

Judiciary – Subordinate judiciary – Quota reserved for Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination-LDCE for promotion
of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to the cadre of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) – If calculated on cadre strength or number
of vacancies occurring in a particular recruitment year:
Held: Keeping uniformity in view, quota to be reserved for LDCE
to be calculated on the basis of the cadre strength. [Paras 48, 89]

Judiciary – Higher judiciary – Promotion to Higher Judicial
Services – Promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the
Cadre of District Judges against the existing 65% quota –
Suitability test – Requirement:
Held: While providing a rule for determining the suitability of
a candidate, it would be relevant to consider factors: whether
the candidate possesses updated knowledge of law, quality of
judgments rendered by the judicial officer, ACRs of preceding five
years, disposal rate in the preceding five years; performance of the
judicial officer in viva voce, and general perceptions and awareness
as also communication skills – Though every High Court required
to frame rules for determining the suitability of a candidate for being
promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre
of Civil Judge (Senior Division), no straight-jacket formula can be
laid down for the said purpose – In States where rules not framed,
such of the High Courts and the State Governments to frame the
Rules forthwith – High Courts and the State Governments to also
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1073

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

examine, as to whether the Rules already existing are sufficient
to determine the suitability of a candidate. [Paras 52, 89]

Judiciary – Subordinate judiciary – Post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) – Requirement of minimum three years practice for
appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) –
If to be restored – Minimum years of practice, to be calculated
from date of provisional enrolment/registration or date of
passing AIBE:
Held: Candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for
the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a
minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said examination –
Candidate to produce a certificate either by the Principal Judicial
Officer of that Court or by an advocate of that Court having a
minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal
Judicial Officer of such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer
at such a station – Candidates practicing before the High Courts
or this Court, to be certified by an advocate who has a minimum
standing of 10 years duly endorsed by officer designated by that
High Court or this Court – Experience of the candidates which they
have gained while working as Law Clerks with any of the Judges
or Judicial Officers in the country to be considered while calculating
their total number of years of practice – Rules also mandate
that the candidates appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) pursuant to their selection through the examination must
compulsorily undergo at least 1 year of training before presiding in
a Court – Number of years of practice completed by a candidate
desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) be calculated from the date of their provisional
enrolment/registration with the concerned State Bar Council –
Furthermore, the requirement of minimum years of practice not
applicable in cases where the concerned High Court has already
initiated the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) prior to the date of this judgment and shall be applicable
only from the next recruitment process. [Para 81-89]

Directions by the Supreme Court – Directions as regards
qualification, promotion and selection of candidates desirous
of entering the Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior
Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and promotions at different
levels within the Judicial Services:
1074 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Held: High Courts and State Governments to amend relevant
service rules to effect the quota of reservation for LDCE for
promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the
Higher Judicial Service is increased to 25%; minimum qualifying
service required to appear in the LDCE for promotion from the
cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Higher Judicial Service
be reduced to 3 years’ service as Civil Judge (Senior Division);
total service required to be undertaken including service rendered
as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division),
be set at minimum of 7 years’ service; 10% of the posts in the
Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) be reserved for accelerated
promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) candidates through
LDCE mechanism; vacancies for LDCE be calculated on basis
of cadre strength; candidates appearing in the examination for
the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for
minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the examination; and
number of years of practice completed by candidate appearing in
the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) be
calculated from the date of their provisional enrolment/registration
with the concerned State Bar Council. [Para 89]

Case Law Cited
All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, 1991 INSC 290 :
[1991] Supp. 2 SCR 206 : (1992) 1 SCC 119; All India Judges,
Association and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Union Of India and Ors. Etc.
Etc., 1993 INSC 272 : [1993] Supp. 1 SCR 749 : (1993) 4 SCC
288; ***All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union Of India
and Ors., 2002 INSC 165 : [2002] 2 SCR 712 : (2002) 4 SCC
247; ****All India Judges Asson. & Ors. v. U.O.I. & Ors. (2010)
15 SCC 170; All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union Of
India and Ors., 2022 INSC 445 : [2022] 5 SCR 692 : (2022) 7
SCC 494 – referred to.

List of Keywords
Judiciary; Judicial service; Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination; Minimum qualifying experience for appearing in
LDCE; Meritorious candidate; Promotion quota based on merit-
cum-seniority; Minimum three years practice for appearing in the
examination of Civil Judge; First National Judicial Pay Commission;
Shetty Commission; Incentive to meritorious judicial officers;
Accelerated promotion; Cadre strength; Establishment of judicial
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1075

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

academy; Law Commission of India 117th Report; Minimum three
years practice as lawyer; Appointment of fresh law graduates;
Sensitivity to human problems; Behavioural and temperamental
problems of fresh law graduates entering judicial service; AIBE;
Provisional enrolment/registration; Mofussil Court; Principal Judicial
Officer; Certified by advocate; Duly endorsed by Principal Judicial
Officer; Duly endorsed by designated officer; Higher Judicial
Service; Civil Judge (Junior Division); Civil Judge (Senior Division);
Suitability test; Administration of justice; Cadre of District Judge;
Reservation of quota; Candidate possess updated knowledge of
law; Quality of judgments rendered by the judicial officer; ACRs
of preceding five years; Disposal rate in preceding five years;
Performance of the judicial officer in viva voce; General perceptions
and awareness; Communication skills; No straight-jacket formula;
Principal Judicial Officer; State Bar Council.

Case Arising From
INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 93974 of 2019
With
I.A. No(s). 72900, 73015 and 40695 of 2021
With
I.A. No(s). 50269 and 201893 of 2022
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)

Appearances for Parties
Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv./Amicus Curiae.
Advs. for the Petitioners:
S.R. Singh, Ajit S. Bhasme, Sr. Advs., Ankit Yadav, Ms. Pracheta
Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz, Ms. Shaoni Das, Ms. Sanchita
Ain, Ajay Kumar Singh, Sushant Kumar Yadav, Prateek Yadav,
Mangal Prasad, Gaurav Lomes, Anurag Singh, Ms. Radha Rajput,
Rana Yashvir Singh Chauhan, Mitr Rao, Ankur Yadav, Dhroov
Kumar Singh, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi,
Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Abhinav Shrivastava,
Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Ms. Shuchi Singh,
1076 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Vivek Kumar Pandey, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Rakesh Dahiya,
A. Venayagam Balan, Abhijit Sengupta, Kuheli Mitra, Paras
Chauhan, R.S.Mishra, Amar Nath Singh, Ms. Sunita Kumari, Pravir
Kumar Jain, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Aayush Gupta, L.R.Garg.
Advs. for the Respondents:
K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., Mrs. Garima
Prashad, Sr. Adv./A.A.G. (U.P), Anil Shrivastav, Nachiketa Joshi,
A.A.Gs., Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv./Advocate General, Wasim Quadri,
Wasim Qadri, Wasim S Qadri, Jaideep Gupta, Apoorv Kurup, B
H Marlapalle, Sr. Advs., Ms. A. Subhashini, Karan Bharihoke,
C Raghavendren, Mrs. C Rubavathi, Devansh Tyagi, Saurabh
Gupta, Nandi Kiran Kumar, M. A. Chinnasamy, Shibashish Misra,
Ajay Kumar, Satish Kumar, T. V. Ratnam, Apoorv Kurup, Ms. G.
Indira, Anandh Kannan N., Gopal Jha, Umesh Kumar Yadav,
Shreyash Bhardwaj, M/s. Gagrat And Co, M/s. Arputham Aruna
And Co, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Nandlal Kumar
Mishra, Srilok Nath Rath, Ms. Reena Rao, Adarsh Upadhyay,
Shashank Pachauri, M. Veerappa, Anil Nag, Kishan Datta, M/s.
Corporate Law Group, K. Ram Kumar, Pravir Choudhary, Reepak
Kansal, Rakesh Kumar, Mrs. Geeta Rani, Ms. Ruhi Gupta, Ms.
N. Annapoorani, V. K. Sidharthan, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mahesh
Kumar, Akshay Kumar Sharma, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V. D.
Khanna, Ranjeet Kumar, Mukesh K. Giri, Mandaar Mukesh Giri,
Sanjay Jain, Sunil Fernandes, Guntur Prabhakar, T. G. Narayanan
Nair, Samyuktha H Nair, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Ratan Kumar
Choudhuri, Ms. A. Sumathi, Gopal Krishna, Gopal Singh, T. L.
Garg, Dr. J. P. Dhanda, V. N. Raghupathy, Manish K. Bishnoi, G.
Prakash, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Naman Jain,
Krishnanand Pandeya, Kamal Mohan Gupta, T. V. George, Gopal
Balwant Sathe, Surya Kant, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Nishant
Sharma, Ms. Adviteeya, Ms. Meera Mathur, Alok Kumar, Mrs.
Bina Gupta, R. Sathish, Nishant Sharma, Rakesh K. Sharma,
Praveen Swarup, Praveen Swarup, Ravi Kumar, Dheeraj Singh,
Saurabh Rohilla, T. Harish Kumar, B. D. Sharma, R. N. Keswani,
Ashok Kumar Singh, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Harsh Ajay Singh, Ms.
Pooja Rathore, Sourabh Suman, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ajit
Pudussery, Raj Kumar Mehta, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Ms. Kavya
Roy Choudhury, Rohit Gupta, Rajiv Mehta, Abhisth Kumar, Ashok
Mathur, Pradeep Misra, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, P. I. Jose, Mrs.
Mary Scaria, P. V. Yogeswaran, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, P. Parmeswaran,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1077

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

Haresh Raichura, Mrs. Saroj Raichura, Kalp Raichura, Ms. Asha
Gopalan Nair, Shashikant Pralhad Chaudhari, T. Mahipal, Sharath
Nambiar, Nalin Kohli, B K Satija, T A Khan, Raman Yadav, Aaditya
Shankar Dixit, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Arun K. Sinha, P. K. Jain,
Ms. S. Janani, Anil Shrivastav, M/s. Parekh & Co., Parijat Sinha,
Ranjan Mukherjee, Prashant Kumar, Kanhaiya Priyadarshi,
Sunny Choudhary, Naresh K. Sharma, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Radha
Shyam Jena, Rajesh Srivastava, Gaurav Verma, Guntur Pramod
Kumar, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhishek Mohanty, Arjun Garg, Ms.
Kriti Gupta, Saaransh Shukla, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom
Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Vinod
Sharma, T. V. Ratnam, Sushil Deshpande, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy,
Nishant Sharma, Ms. Adviteeya, Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh,
Ramesh Babu M. R., Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sahil Tagotra,
Sujay Jain, Siddharth Sangal, Ms. Manju Jetley, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh,
Sameer Abhyankar, Aakash Thakur, Rahul Kumar, Krishna Rustogi,
Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Shuvodeep Roy, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Nishe
Rajen Shonker, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Sarad
Kumar Singhania, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Som Raj Choudhury,
Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Mrs. Shashi Pathak,
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K. Nayak, Daniel
Lyngdoh, Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, K Rajeev, Bijo Mathew Joy, Atul
Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul Pnadey,
Sudipta Singha Roy, Ms. Himanshu Raj, Harsh Kumar, Avdhesh
K Singh, Amit Gupta, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Kshitij Vaibhav, Sunny
Choudhary, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli
Prasad, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Aniket Singh,
Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Ishita
Bist, Ms. Ambika Atrey, Ms. Jyoti Verma, Navneet Gupta, Chanchal
Kumar Ganguli, M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Purushottam Sharma
Tripathi, Ajay Pal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, T A Khan, Nalin Kohli, B
K Satija, Sharath Nambiar, Vinayak Sharma, Padmesh Mishra, Daya
Krishan Sharma, Rohit Vats, Yashdeep, Subham Rana, Pushkar
Sharma, P. S. Sudheer, Ashutosh Dubey, Ashutosh Dubey, Abhishek
Chauhan, Mrs. Rajshri Dubey, Amit P Shahi, Gaurav Yadav, Amit
Kumar, Anirban Tripathi, Manish Dhingra, Rajendra Anbhule, Mrs.
Sona Khan, Sumant Akram Khan, Rahul Sethi, Ms. Ranjeeta
Rohatgi, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Vivek Sharma, Siddharth R. Gupta,
Mrigank Prabhakar, Shantanu Sharma, Aman Agarwal, Siddharth
Sahu, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, G. N. Reddy, Malak Manish Bhatt,
1078 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Ms. Somya Saxena, Rajan Kumar, Shashank Singh, Mahendra
Vikram Singh, Vikas Kumar, Binod Kumar Thakur, Sandeep Kumar,
Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Ravi Kumar S., P.S.
Sridhar Raj, Ms. Smita Amratlal Vora, Chirag M. Shroff, Amrish
Kumar, Prashant Shukla, Abhishek Tiwari, Suyash Srivastava,
Manish Pandey, Giridhar Upadhayay, Goutam Prasad, Satyajeet
Kumar, Santosh Krishnan, Niranjan Sahu, Ms. Shivangi Gupta,
Adarsh Upadhyay, Shashank Pachauri, D. K. Devesh, Aravindh
S., Akshay Gupta, Aadithya Aravindh, Raghvendra Kumar, Anil
Kumar Mishra-i, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Pallavi Barua,
Ms. Aparna Singh, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhishek Mohanty,
Mahesh Thakur, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Sabarish Subramanian,
Ms. Devyani Gupta, Saushriya Havelia A, Vishnu Unnikrishnan,
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Danish Saifi, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D.
Singh, Venkata Raghuvamsy D., Raj Bahadur Yadav, T A Khan,
B K Satija, Sharath Nambiar, Rajeeva Ranjan Rajesh, Pratyush
Srivastava, Mrs. Kritygya Kait, Ms. Sweksha, Satish Pandey, Ms.
Jay Jaimini Pandey, Akbar Ali, Manmohan Sharma, Ms. Shadiya
Shakeel, Meghraj Singh, Smarhar Singh, Ms. Shweta Kumari,
Manoj Kumar, Vikas Chopra, Chandra Pratap, Gaurav Agrawal, Pai
Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Kushal Dube, Akshay Girish Ringe,
Kartikeya Rastogi, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit
Bansal, Ms. Mrinalini Mukherjee, Braj Kishore Mishra, Abhishek
Yadav, Vikram Patralekh, Gagan Gupta, Ms. Namita Choudhary,
Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Gurjas Singh Narula, Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Ms.
Aswathi M.K., Kumar Anurag Singh, Rajiv Shekhar Dwivedi,
Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ms. Radhika Gautam, Ms.
Anjul Dwivedi, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma,
Savadikar Ankur Shirish, Viraj M. Parakh, S. Gowthaman, D. L.
Chidananda, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms.
Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Ms. Astha Sharma,
Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Amol V Deshmukh, Avinish Kumar Saurabh,
Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh,
Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Kumar
Mihir, Ms. Asmita Singh, Abheet Mangleek, Tushar Nair, Anirudh
Anand, Punishk Handa, Anandh Kannan N., V. N. Raghupathy,
Sumeer Sodhi, Neeraj Kr. Sharma, Kanu Agrawal, Vatsal Joshi,
Mukesh Kumar Verma, Piyush Beriwal, Harish Pandey, Shashwat
Parihar, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Krishna Kant Dubey, Manish
Kumar, Kartikay Aggarwal, Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod
Kumar, Dhruv Yadav, Kunal Mimani, Prashant Alai.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1079

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

INDEX*

I. PREFACE ....................................................................................... 3

II. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ...................................................... 6

III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ...................................................... 9

Issue No.1: As to whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination (for short,
‘LDCE’) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service
i.e. cadre of District Judge, needs to be restored
to 25% as determined by this Court in the case
of All India Judges’ Association and others v.
Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4
SCC 247? ................................................................ 9

Issue No.2: As to whether the minimum qualifying experience
for appearing in the aforesaid examination needs
to be reduced, and if so, by how many years? ... 20

Issue No.3: As to whether a quota needs to be reserved
for meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge
(Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division)
so that there is an incentive for merit in the cadre
of Civil Judge (Junior Division)? ........................... 29

Issue No.4: If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof
and what should be the minimum experience as
a Civil Judge (Junior Division)? ............................ 29

Issue No.5: As to whether the quota to be reserved for the
aforementioned departmental examinations in a
particular year should be calculated on the cadre
strength or on the number of vacancies occurring
in the particular recruitment year? ....................... 31

Issue No.6: As to whether some suitability test should also
be introduced while promoting the Civil Judge
(Senior Division) to the Cadre of District Judges
against the existing 65% quota for promotion to
Higher Judicial Services on the basis of merit-
cum-seniority. ........................................................ 32

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1080 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Issue No.7: As to whether the requirement of having
minimum three years practice for appearing in
the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
which was done away by this Court in the case
of All India Judges Association & Ors. (supra),
needs to be restored? And if so, by how many
years? ..................................................................... 38

Issue No.8: If the requirement of certain minimum years
of practice for appearing in the examination of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) is restored, should
the same be calculated from the date of the
provisional enrolment/registration or from the
date of the passing of the AIBE? ......................... 38

IV. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS ................................................ 57

Judgment

B.R. Gavai, CJI

I. PREFACE
1. This batch of applications raises issues pertaining to the qualification,
promotion and selection of candidates who are desirous of either
entering the Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) or
Higher Judicial Service, and with regard to the promotions at different
levels within the Judicial Services.
2. Before we consider the issues in light of the submissions made on
behalf of the various stakeholders, we first set out below the prayers
sought in the various applications.

I.A. NO.93974 OF 2019
3. This I.A. has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) For clarification/directions whether the quota for LDCE for
induction in the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service is to be
maintained on the cadre strength of District Judge (Entry Level)
or on the basis of the vacancies arising each year; or
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1081

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

(ii) In the alternative, modify the order dated 20th April 2010 passed
in the writ petition by restoring the share and/or quota for
LDCE for introduction in West Bengal Higher Judicial Service
to 25% of the cadre strength of District Judge (Entry Level)
and by granting liberty to the High Court at Calcutta to fill up
the vacancies for promotion on merit through LDCE in such
manner that 10% of the total vacancies arising in a particular
recruitment year is earmarked for LDCE or else the object and/
or purpose of carving out such channel might be frustrated in
so far as State of West Bengal is concerned.

I.A. NOS. 72900 AND 40695 OF 2021 AND I.A. NO.50269 OF 2022
4. These I.As. have been filed seeking directions in respect of:
(i) Method of regular promotion (Objective Suitability Test); and
(ii) Enhancement of percentage of quota for accelerated promotion
strictly on the basis of merit through competitive examination
for the post of District Judges.

I.A. NO. 73015 OF 2021
5. This I.A. has been filed seeking the following relief:
(i) For modification of order dated 20th April 2010 passed in I.A.
No.77 of 2000 in W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 (i.e. to increase and
restore the quota to 25% from 10% for accelerated promotion
to the post of District Judges) and to stay regular promotion
initiated by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court until a suitability
test is conducted in terms of the judgment dated 21st March
2002 passed by this Court.

I.A. NO. 201893 OF 2022
6. This I.A. has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Modify orders dated 21st March 2002 and 20th April 2010 in
W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 to suitably amend the LDCE eligibility
conditions for all States and Union Territories, so that the LDCE
quota is fully utilized; and
(ii) Modify the judgment and order dated 20th April 2010 in W.P.(C)
No.1022 of 1989, to restore the LDCE quota to 25% instead
of 10%.
1082 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

II. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
7. When the aforesaid IAs were listed before this Court on 25th April
2023, we had heard the learned amicus curiae as well as the learned
counsel for the various State Governments and High Courts and
found it necessary to decide certain larger issues concerning the
administration of justice. We, therefore, framed the following seven
issues for consideration:
(i) As to whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination (for short, ‘LDCE’) for promotion to
Higher Judicial Service i.e. cadre of District Judge, needs to
be restored to 25% as determined by this Court in the case of
All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of India
and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247?
(ii) As to whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing
in the aforesaid examination needs to be reduced, and if so,
by how many years?
(iii) As to whether a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious
candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge
(Senior Division) so that there is an incentive for merit in the
cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)?
(iv) If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof and what
should be the minimum experience as a Civil Judge (Junior
Division)?
(v) As to whether the quota to be reserved for the aforementioned
departmental examinations in a particular year should be
calculated on the cadre strength or on the number of vacancies
occurring in the particular recruitment year?
(vi) As to whether some suitability test should also be introduced
while promoting the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Cadre
of District Judges against the existing 65% quota for promotion
to Higher Judicial Services on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.
(vii) As to whether the requirement of having minimum three years
practice for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), which was done away by this Court in the case of
All India Judges Association & Ors. (supra), needs to be
restored? And if so, by how many years?
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1083

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

8. On the next date of hearing i.e., 18th May 2023, another issue
(hereinafter referred to as, “Issue No.8”) was flagged by learned
Senior Counsel Shri B.H. Marlapalle for consideration. The relevant
portion of the order reads thus:
“Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel, submitted
that as per the Bar Council of India Regulations, initially
provisional registration is required to be made for a period
of 2 years. He further submitted that only if a candidate
passes the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE), a permanent
registration can be granted. He further submitted that
while considering the issue as to whether a minimum
number of years of practice should be made mandatory
for permitting a candidate to appear for the examination
of Civil Judge (Junior Division), it will also be necessary
to take into consideration the aforesaid Regulations of the
Bar Council of India.
We would also request the Union of India, all the State
Governments and the High Courts to consider the aforesaid
issue of Bar Council of India Regulations, while considering
as to whether a minimum number of years of practice
should be made mandatory before applying for the post
of Civil Judge (Junior Division).”
9. It can thus be seen that Issue No.8 which was sought to be raised
was that: “If the requirement of certain minimum years of practice
for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
is restored, should the same be calculated from the date of the
provisional enrolment/registration or from the date of passing of the
All-India Bar Examination (AIBE)?”
10. On the said date of hearing i.e., 18th May 2023, this Court has directed
the Union of India, all the State Governments and all the High Courts
to furnish their responses in form of an affidavit.
11. Accordingly, various State Governments as well as the High Courts
and the other stakeholders have filed their affidavits. The learned
amicus curiae has meticulously tabulated the information as emerging
from the said affidavits and produced the same along with his
comprehensive note.
1084 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12. We have heard Shri Sidharth Bhatnagar, learned amicus curiae
and learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the various
stakeholders on several dates. By way of the present judgment, we
are deciding all the 8 issues.

III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Issue No.1: As to whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination (for short,
‘LDCE’) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service
i.e., cadre of District Judge, needs to be restored
to 25% as determined by this Court in the case
of All India Judges’ Association and others v.
Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4
SCC 247?
13. For considering the aforesaid issue, we will have to consider the
background for providing the reservation for LDCE for promotion to
Higher Judicial Service.
14. In pursuance to the directions given by this Court in the judgment
in the present proceedings dated 13th November 19911 (hereinafter
referred to as “First AIJA Case”), the Government of India by a
resolution dated 21st March 1996 constituted the First National
Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice K.J.
Shetty, Former Judge of this Court (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty
Commission”). After thorough deliberations, the Shetty Commission
submitted its Report on 11th November 1999.
15. This Court, in the judgment in the present proceedings dated
21st March 20022 (hereinafter referred to as “Third AIJA Case”),
considered various recommendations of the Shetty Commission,
and the responses made thereto by various stakeholders. This Court
considered the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission
that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e., the District
Judge Cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25% and
appointment on the basis of promotion should be 75%.

1 1991 INSC 290 : (1992) 1 SCC 119
2 2002 INSC 165 : (2002) 4 SCC 247
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1085

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

16. While considering this recommendation, this Court observed thus:
“27. Another question which falls for consideration is
the method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of
Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional
District Judges. At the present moment, there are two
sources for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service,
namely, by promotion from amongst the members of the
Subordinate Judicial Service and by direct recruitment.
The subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice
of the judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like
any other foundation, that it should become as strong as
possible. The weight on the judicial system essentially
rests on the subordinate judiciary. While we have accepted
the recommendation of the Shetty Commission which will
result in the increase in the pay scales of the subordinate
judiciary, it is at the same time necessary that the judicial
officers, hard-working as they are, become more efficient.
It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of
law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this
reason that the Shetty Commission has recommended
the establishment of a Judicial Academy, which is very
necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion that
there has to be certain minimum standard, objectively
adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial
Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges.
While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the
recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District
Judge cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25
per cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a
competitive examination, both written and viva voce, we
are of the opinion that there should be an objective method
of testing the suitability of the subordinate judicial officers
for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore,
there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively
junior and other officers to improve and to compete with
each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In
this way, we expect that the calibre of the members of
the Higher Judicial Service will further improve. In order
to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per cent appointment
1086 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

by promotion and 25 per cent by direct recruitment to the
Higher Judicial Service is maintained, we are, however,
of the opinion that there should be two methods as far
as appointment by promotion is concerned : 50 per cent
of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be
filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum-
seniority. For this purpose, the High Courts should devise
and evolve a test in order to ascertain and examine the
legal knowledge of those candidates and to assess their
continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case-law.
The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall
be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through
the limited departmental competitive examination for which
the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division)
should be not less than five years. The High Courts will
have to frame a rule in this regard.
28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct
that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the
cadre of District Judges will be:
(1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst
the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis
of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing
a suitability test;
(b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis
of merit through limited competitive examination
of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less
than five years’ qualifying service; and
(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by
direct recruitment from amongst the eligible
advocates on the basis of the written and viva
voce test conducted by respective High Courts.
(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above
by the High Courts as early as possible.”
17. It can thus be seen that though this Court had approved the
recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the
Higher Judicial Service i.e., the District Judge Cadre from amongst
the advocates should be 25% and appointment by way of promotion
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1087

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

should be 75%, it opined that there should be two methods insofar
as appointment by promotion is concerned. This Court opined that
50% of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled
up by promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority. This
Court therefore directed that, for the said purpose, the High Courts
should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain and examine the
legal knowledge of those candidates and to assess their continued
efficiency with adequate knowledge of case-law. This Court further
directed that the remaining 25% of the posts in the service shall be
filled up by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through LDCE.
This Court further directed that, for being entitled to appear in the
said LDCE, the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division)
should be not less than 5 years. This Court therefore directed the
High Courts to frame the necessary rules so as to implement the
aforesaid directions.
18. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the High Courts had
amended the Service Rules and 25% of the posts of District Judges
were reserved for being filled up through LDCE. However, many of
the High Courts found it difficult to fill up 25% of posts through such
a process. In some of the States, as many as 50 posts of District
Judges to be filled up by such exercise remained vacant and there
was no alternative method provided by which these vacant posts
could be filled up. Though the Rules framed by some of the High
Courts provided that such unfilled posts could be filled up by regular
promotion, in some of the States no such Rules were framed. Many of
the States therefore were of the opinion that the said 25% reservation
needed to be reduced. Though some of the States like Gujarat, Delhi,
Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh wanted
that 25% reservation for LDCE should be continued but they also
suggested that in case any post has remained unfilled in the said
LDCE quota, they be filled by regular promotion. Some of the States
also faced the difficulty that sufficient number of candidates were
not available for being promoted under the LDCE category from the
Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division). This was so, because in such
States even in normal course, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) could
be promoted through the 50% quota for merit-cum-seniority before
the completion of his/her mandatory 5 years as a Civil Judge (Senior
Division) for the purpose of LDCE. This Court therefore considered
this issue in its judgment in the present proceedings dated 20th April
1088 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

20103 (hereinafter referred to as “Fourth AIJA Case”). This Court
found that a large number of unfilled vacancies in the 25% LDCE
category was not good for judicial administration. Therefore, this Court
found that it was desirable that 25% quota reserved for LDCE be
reduced to 10%. This Court therefore issued the following directions:
“6. Having regard to various strategies available, we
are of the considered view that suitable amendment is
to be made for this 25% quota of limited departmental
competitive examination. We are also of the view, with
the past experience, that it is desirable that 25% quota be
reduced to 10%. We feel so as the required result, which
was sought to be achieved by this process could not be
achieved, thus it calls for modification.
7. Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the
cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by limited
departmental competitive examination with those
candidates who have qualified service of five years as
Civil Judge (Senior Division). Every year vacancies are
to be ascertained and the process of selection shall be
taken care of by the High Courts. If any of the post is
not filled up under 10% quota, the same shall be filled
up by regular promotion. In some of the High Courts,
process of selection of these 25% quota by holding limited
departmental competitive examination is in progress,
such process can be continued and the unfilled seats, if
meritorious candidates are available, should be filled up.
But if for some reason the seats are not filled up, they may
be filled up by regular promotion and apply the usual mode
of promotion process. Thus we pass the following order.
8. Hereinafter, there shall be 25% of seats for direct
recruitment from the Bar, 65% of seats are to be filled
up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
and 10% seats are to be filled up by limited departmental
competitive examination. If candidates are not available for
10% seats, or are not able to qualify in the examination
then vacant posts are to be filled up by regular promotion
in accordance with the Service Rules applicable.

3 (2010) 15 SCC 170
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1089

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

9. All the High Courts are hereby directed to take steps
to see that existing Service Rules be amended positively
with effect from 1-1-2011. If the Rules are not suitably
amended, this order shall prevail and further recruitment
from 1-1-2011 shall be continued accordingly as directed
by us. The time schedule prescribed in the order dated
4-1-2007 (in Malik Mazhar Sultan case [Malik Mazhar
Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17
SCC 703 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 942] ) shall be strictly
adhered to for the purpose of selection. All the vacancies
are to be filled up in that particular year and there shall
not be any carry forward of the unfilled posts.”
19. Accordingly, in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the
Recruitment Rules insofar as the recruitment in the Cadre of District
Judges were amended. The earlier recruitment ratio of District Judge
Cadre i.e., 50:25:25 for promotion and direct recruitment, was modified
to 65:10:25 and the quota for LDCE was reduced.
20. However, since with the passage of time, sufficient number of
candidates in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) were eligible
to be promoted as District Judge through LDCE, certain I.As. were
filed before this Court for restoring the said 10% quota to 25%.
21. In response to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated
25th April 2023, various High Courts have filed their responses.
22. From the data compiled by learned amicus curiae, it would reveal that
the High Courts of Chhattisgarh, Patna, Kerala, Manipur, Madras and
Uttarakhand have recommended that the quota of LDCE be restored
to 25%. However, the High Courts of Gauhati, Andhra Pradesh,
Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab &
Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Calcutta, Delhi and Jammu &
Kashmir and Ladakh have recommended to retain the same position.
23. It is further to be noted that even those High Courts that have
recommended that the LDCE quota to be restored to 25%, have
further recommended that if any seat remains vacant, the same shall
be filled up by regular promotion in the same year.
24. We find that if the quota of LDCE is restored to 25% as originally
recommended in the Third AIJA Case, which was reduced to 10%
in the Fourth AIJA Case, it will provide an incentive amongst the
1090 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

officers in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division). It will also
provide them with an opportunity to get accelerated promotion in
the Cadre of District Judge if they are meritorious and deserving.
25. Another difficulty that has come to our notice is that sufficient number
of candidates are not available for appearing in LDCE on account of
requirement of having minimum 5 years’ experience as Civil Judge
(Senior Division) which is prescribed as an eligibility criterion for
appearing in the LDCE for the Higher Judiciary.
26. In some of the States, a Judicial Officer who completes about 5
years’ service in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), in normal
course, becomes entitled to be promoted in the Cadre of District
Judge. We have already framed Issue No.2 dealing with this very
conundrum, which we are considering immediately after this issue.
27. We find that in view of the answer that we propose for Issue No.2,
sufficient number of Judicial Officers from the Cadre of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) would be available who would be eligible for
appearing in LDCE.
28. If, in a particular year sufficient candidates are not selected from
the LDCE quota, it will be appropriate that such posts would revert
back to the regular promotion quota based on merit-cum-seniority,
to be filled up in the same year. Therefore, in such a case, we find
that no adverse impact on the administration of justice would occur
even if the LDCE quota is increased to 25%. In our view, this apart
from avoiding any adverse effect on administration of justice due
to sufficient number of seats not being filled up would also ensure
that no prejudice would be caused to the regular promotees and at
the same time, the said exercise would provide an incentive to the
meritorious Judicial Officers, if their merit deserves the same.

Issue No.2: As to whether the minimum qualifying experience
for appearing in the aforesaid examination needs
to be reduced, and if so, by how many years?
29. The difficulty of the requirement of having 5 years’ experience as
Civil Judge (Senior Division) was noticed by this Court in its order
dated 19th April 2022 passed in the present proceedings4 (hereinafter

4 2022 INSC 445 : (2022) 7 SCC 494
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1091

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

referred to as “Fifth AIJA Case”). No doubt that the said decision
of this Court pertained only to the Delhi Judicial Services. After
considering the rival submissions, a three-Judges Bench of this
Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member observed thus:
“17. The very purpose for providing the channel of
promotion through LDCE was to provide an incentive to
the officers amongst the relatively junior officers to improve
and to compete with each other so as to excel and get
quicker promotion. In the peculiar situation prevailing in
the High Court of Delhi, the very purpose is frustrated. We
are, therefore, of the considered view that in the peculiar
facts and circumstances, both IA No. 249 of 2009 and IA
No. 89454 of 2021 deserve to be allowed.
18. Shri Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the High Court of Delhi has fairly stated that the High
Court of Delhi, on its own, has reserved two seats for the
present judicial officers-applicants so that their claims are
not defeated by passage of time or by delay in holding of
the examination.
19. In view of the submission made by Shri Rao, no orders
are necessary to be passed in IA No. 89450 of 2021, IA
No. 44132 of 2022 in IAs Nos. 89450 and 88976 of 2021.
20. In the result, IA No. 89454 of 2021 filed by the judicial
officers-applicants and IA No. 249 of 2009 filed by the High
Court of Delhi are allowed in the following terms:
20.1. Para 28(1)(b) of the order dated 21-3-2002 [All India
Judges Assn. (3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 :
2002 SCC (L&S) 508] passed by this Court, is modified
and substituted as under:
“25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit
through LDCE of Civil Judges having 7 years’
qualifying service [5 years as Civil Judge (Junior
Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior
Division)] or 10 years’ qualifying service as Civil
Judge (Junior Division).”
20.2. Similarly, in the order dated 20-4-2010 [All India
Judges Assn. v. Union of India, (2010) 15 SCC 170 :
1092 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 548] passed by this Court, the
direction in para 7 i.e. “Thus, we direct that henceforth
only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled
up by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
with those candidates who have qualified service of five
years as Civil Judge (Senior Division)”, is modified and
substituted as under:
“Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the
cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
with those candidates who have qualified service
of 7 years [5 years as Civil Judge (Junior
Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior
Division)] or 10 years’ qualifying service as Civil
Judge (Junior Division).””
30. Though in the said order, this Court considered the aforesaid
requirement of 5 years’ experience, only insofar as High Court of
Delhi is concerned, from the responses we have received from
various High Courts and the State Governments, we are of the view
that the said requirement requires reconsideration.
31. As can be seen from the affidavits filed, the High Courts of Gauhati,
Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab &
Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Madras, Tripura, Calcutta and Jammu
& Kashmir and Ladakh have opposed the reduction of experience
of 5 years. The Governments of these States have also adopted the
suggestions made by their High Courts. However, the High Court
of Patna has recommended the qualifying service as a Civil Judge
(Senior Division) should be 3 years.
32. The State of Haryana has observed that the average time taken by a
Civil Judge (Junior Division) to be eligible for LDCE is 14 years. The
State Government has therefore recommended that the qualifying
service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) may be reduced to 2 or 3
years for being eligible to appear for LDCE.
33. Insofar as the State of Kerala is concerned, both the State Government
and the High Court of Kerala have recommended that the minimum
requirement of having an experience of 5 years as Civil Judge (Senior
Division) should be brought down to 3 years.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1093

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

34. High Court of Uttarakhand has recommended for reducing the
minimum qualifying service of 5 years to 2 years. Further, the High
Court of Allahabad has also recommended for reducing the minimum
qualifying service of 5 years to 3 years.
35. Insofar as the States of Chhattisgarh and Manipur are concerned,
it appears that the State Governments and the High Courts are not
on the same pitch.
36. Insofar as the State of Chhattisgarh is concerned, the State
Government has given a positive opinion with regard to amending
the provision for reducing the minimum requirement of having an
experience of 5 years as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to 2 years.
However, High Court of Chhattisgarh has opposed for reduction of
the minimum qualifying experience.
37. The situation is converse insofar as State of Manipur is concerned.
In the State of Manipur, though the High Court has recommended
reduction of minimum experience from 5 years to 2 years, it has also
recommended that the minimum years of service as a Judicial Officer
including that of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) should not be less than
7 years. However, the State of Manipur though has opposed such
a reduction, it has left the final decision to the wisdom of this Court.
38. Insofar as the State of Gujarat is concerned, it has not given any
opinion. From the affidavit filed by the High Court of Gujarat, it appears
that there exists a completely anomalous situation. Rule 5(3)(i) of
the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 provides that 2 years
of qualifying service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) is required for
being eligible for promotion in the cadre of District Judge against
65% quota. However, Rule 5(3)(ii) of the said Rules provides that 5
years of qualifying service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) is required
for being eligible for promotion in the Cadre of District Judge against
10% quota. In the affidavit of High Court of Gujarat itself, it is stated
that the said position has been holding the field since the year 2005
and is working out well. The position that emerges in the State of
Gujarat though is that, for being eligible for a promotional quota in
a regular course, only 2 years’ experience is required. However, to
compete from LDCE, which is supposed to be for the purpose of
providing incentive, a Judicial Officer must have 5 years’ service as
Civil Judge (Senior Division). We find that such a position is totally
inconsistent with the idea of providing an incentive to a meritorious
1094 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Civil Judge (Senior Division) to have an opportunity to get an
accelerated promotion to the Cadre of District Judge.
39. We find that it will be appropriate to compare the position in some
of the States with regard to average time taken by a Civil Judge
(Junior Division) to get eligible for LDCE as against the average time
taken by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to become a District Judge
by regular promotions. In this respect, a Chart was submitted by the
learned amicus curiae, extracted as under:
i. “Bihar
a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be eligible
for LDCE - 9 to 10 years
b) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to become a
District Judge by regular promotions – 9 to 10 years

ii. Himachal Pradesh
a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be eligible
for LDCE - 15 to 16 years
b) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to become a
District Judge by regular promotions – 19 to 20 years

iii. Maharashtra
a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be eligible
for LDCE - 11 years
b) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to become
a District Judge by regular promotions – 13 years

iv. Manipur
a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be eligible
for LDCE - 10 years 7 months
b) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to become
a District Judge by regular promotions – 11 years

v. Punjab
a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be eligible
for LDCE - 14 to 15 years
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1095

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

b) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to become
a District Judge by regular promotions – 15 years

vi. Haryana
a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be eligible
for LDCE - 14 years
b) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to become
a District Judge by regular promotions – 12 years

vii. Uttar Pradesh
a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be eligible
for LDCE - 9 to 10 years
b) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to become a
District Judge by regular promotions – 9 to 10 years”
40. The comparative position would reveal that in most of the States, the
average time taken by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to climb the
ladder of regular promotion and ultimately, be promoted as a District
Judge is almost the same as the time it takes to become eligible for
a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to appear for LDCE.
41. As such, there will be no actual incentive for a Judicial Officer to
appear for LDCE and such incentive cannot be frustrated by actual
working of the said scheme.
42. As has been discussed hereinabove, the purpose behind providing a
special quota for LDCE is to enable the meritorious Judicial Officers
to get accelerated promotion and enter the Cadre of District Judge
at an earlier point of time than other less meritorious candidates. If
a Judicial Officer even otherwise gets entry in the Cadre of District
Judge after completion of 5 years of service as a Civil Judge (Senior
Division), there will be no incentive available to him/her. As already
discussed hereinabove, in some of the High Courts, a Judicial Officer
gets into the Cadre of District Judge through regular promotion
itself after he/she completes 5 years’ service as Civil Judge (Senior
Division). Therefore, in our considered view, it will be desirable to
modify the requirement to become eligible for LDCE for the Higher
Judicial Services and reduce the minimum number of years of
experience as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) from 5 years to 3
years. However, at the same time, we are also of the opinion that,
1096 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

as recommended by some of the States, the total number of years
of experience for a Judicial Officer for being eligible for LDCE should
be a minimum cumulative of 7 years including service as Civil Judge
(Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division).

Issue No.3: As to whether a quota needs to be reserved for
meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior
Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) so that
there is an incentive for merit in the cadre of Civil
Judge (Junior Division)?
AND

Issue No.4: If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof
and what should be the minimum experience as a
Civil Judge (Junior Division)?
43. The High Courts across the country have given varying opinions
with regard to the aforesaid two issues. Whereas some of the High
Courts have opposed for providing such a quota for promotion from
Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division), on the
other hand, some of the High Courts have recommended the same.
There are also diverse views on minimum number of years to be put
in by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) before they are considered as
eligible for being promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) through
LDCE mechanism.
44. In this respect, it will be apposite to refer to the judgment of this
Court in the Third AIJA Case.
45. This Court, while considering the recommendation of the Shetty
Commission for providing 25% quota for Direct Recruitment from
the Bar and 75% quota for promotion on the basis of the principle
of merit-cum-seniority, was of the view that in the 75% quota, 25%
posts are required to be filled up through LDCE so as to provide
an incentive to the meritorious candidates. We are of the view that
there should be no reason as to why the said principle also cannot
be adopted for promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) candidates
to the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division).
46. Therefore, we are of the view that a system wherein 10% of the
posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) would be reserved
for promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) through the LDCE
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1097

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

mechanism needs to be introduced so as to provide incentive at an
earlier promotion to the meritorious candidates working in the Cadre
of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The said seats would be filled up
through the same mechanism adopted for filling up the vacancies
reserved through LDCE for entry into the Cadre of District Judge.
The minimum experience of a Judicial Officer in the Cadre of Civil
Judge (Junior Division) for appearing in such an examination should
be 3 years.

Issue No.5: As to whether the quota to be reserved for the
aforementioned departmental examinations in a
particular year should be calculated on the cadre
strength or on the number of vacancies occurring
in the particular recruitment year?
47. Insofar as this issue is concerned, most of the State Governments
except the four States of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and West
Bengal have recommended filling up of vacant seats as per the total
cadre strength and not as per the vacancies arising in a particular year.
The learned amicus curiae has placed on record a chart depicting the
said position of all the States who had filed their responses.
48. We are of the view that a uniform practice needs to be followed by
all the States in the country. Since most of the States are already
filling up the vacant posts as per the total cadre strength, keeping
uniformity in mind, we are of the view that the quota to be reserved
for LDCE should be calculated on the basis of the cadre strength.

Issue No.6: As to whether some suitability test should also
be introduced while promoting the Civil Judge
(Senior Division) to the Cadre of District Judges
against the existing 65% quota for promotion to
Higher Judicial Services on the basis of merit-
cum-seniority.
49. For considering this issue, it will be relevant to refer to the following
observations made by this Court in the Third AIJA Case:
“27. Another question which falls for consideration is
the method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of
Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional
District Judges. At the present moment, there are two
1098 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

sources for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service,
namely, by promotion from amongst the members of the
Subordinate Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The
subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the
judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other
foundation, that it should become as strong as possible.
The weight on the judicial system essentially rests on
the subordinate judiciary. While we have accepted the
recommendation of the Shetty Commission which will result
in the increase in the pay scales of the subordinate judiciary,
it is at the same time necessary that the judicial officers,
hard-working as they are, become more efficient. It is
imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law and
the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the
Shetty Commission has recommended the establishment
of a Judicial Academy, which is very necessary. At the
same time, we are of the opinion that there has to be
certain minimum standard, objectively adjudged, for
officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as
Additional District Judges and District Judges. While we
agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitment
to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge
cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25 per
cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a
competitive examination, both written and viva voce,
we are of the opinion that there should be an objective
method of testing the suitability of the subordinate
judicial officers for promotion to the Higher Judicial
Service. Furthermore, there should also be an incentive
amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve
and to compete with each other so as to excel and get
quicker promotion. In this way, we expect that the calibre
of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will further
improve. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per
cent appointment by promotion and 25 per cent by direct
recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is maintained,
we are, however, of the opinion that there should be two
methods as far as appointment by promotion is concerned :
50 per cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial
Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1099

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

principle of merit-cum-seniority. For this purpose,
the High Courts should devise and evolve a test in
order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge
of those candidates and to assess their continued
efficiency with adequate knowledge of case-law. The
remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall be
filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through
the limited departmental competitive examination for which
the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division)
should be not less than five years. The High Courts will
have to frame a rule in this regard.
28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct
that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the
cadre of District Judges will be:
(1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the
Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle
of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test;
(b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis
of merit through limited competitive examination of
Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than
five years’ qualifying service; and
(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct
recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on
the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted
by respective High Courts.
(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by
the High Courts as early as possible.”
[Emphasis supplied]

50. It can be seen that, in the Third AIJA Case, while this Court had
accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which
recommended an increase in the Pay-Scales of the subordinate
judiciary, this Court also emphasized the necessity of Judicial
Officers becoming more efficient. This Court observed that it was
imperative that they keep abreast of the developments in law and
the latest judicial pronouncements. This Court further observed that,
it was for that reason, the Shetty Commission had recommended
1100 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the establishment of a Judicial Academy. This Court also expressed
that there should be an objective method for testing the suitability
of the Judicial Officers who are in line for promotion to the Higher
Judicial Service. This Court had observed that 50% of the total posts
in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion based on
the principle of merit-cum-seniority. It has further been observed that
for the said purpose, the High Courts should devise and evolve a
test in order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of such
candidates and to assess their continued efficiency with adequate
knowledge of case-law. This Court further emphasized the necessity
of postulating the basis of determining the suitability of the candidate
while he/she was being considered to be promoted to the Cadre of
Higher Judicial Service. The said determination was on the basis of
various factors including as to whether such candidate possesses
adequate legal knowledge or not.
51. Perusal of the affidavits filed by various High Courts as well as
State Governments would reveal that in some of the High Courts,
the Rules have been framed for determining the suitability of a
candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service
from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division). Perusal of the
affidavits of the High Courts and the States where such suitability
is being determined would reveal that various factors are taken into
consideration while determining the suitability of a candidate like:
(i) evaluation of judgments rendered by the Judicial Officer in the
preceding five years; (ii) Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the
Judicial Officer in the preceding five years; (iii) disposal rate in the
preceding five years; (iv) pendency of the disciplinary proceedings;
and (v) the performance of the candidate in the viva voce.
52. We are of the view that though every High Court would be required
to frame the Rules for determining the suitability of a candidate for
being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the
Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), no straight-jacket formula can
be laid down for the said purpose. We however find that, in such of
the States where the Rules have not been framed for determining the
suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher
Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), such
of the High Courts and the State Governments should frame the
Rules forthwith. We further find that the High Courts and the State
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1101

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

Governments shall also examine, as to whether the Rules already
existing are sufficient to determine the suitability of a candidate for
being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre
of Civil Judge (Senior Division). We find that while providing a Rule
for determining the suitability of a candidate, it would be relevant
to consider factors referred to by us in the preceding paragraphs
amongst other factors:
(i) Whether the candidate possesses updated knowledge of law;
(ii) The quality of judgments rendered by the Judicial Officer;
(iii) ACRs of the Judicial Officer of the preceding five years;
(iv) Disposal rate in the preceding five years;
(v) Performance of the Judicial Officer in the viva voce; and
(vi) General perceptions and awareness as also communication
skills.

Issue No.7: As to whether the requirement of having minimum
three years practice for appearing in the examination
of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was done
away by this Court in the case of All India Judges
Association & Ors. (supra), needs to be restored?
And if so, by how many years?
AND

Issue No.8: If the requirement of certain minimum years of
practice for appearing in the examination of Civil
Judge (Junior Division) is restored, should the
same be calculated from the date of the provisional
enrolment/registration or from the date of the
passing of the AIBE?
53. These issues pertain to the question as to whether the requirement
of minimum 3 years’ practice for appearing in the examination for
the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) which was done away by
this Court in Third AIJA Case requires to be restored or not. The
ancillary question that is framed by us is as to how many years of
experience should be prescribed for practicing before appearing in
the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
1102 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

54. While we had called upon the responses of various High Courts and
the State Governments in the country vide order dated 25th April
2023, when the matter was listed on 18th May 2023, Shri Marlapalle,
learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the Bar Council of
India Regulations, initially provisional registration is required to be
made for a period of 2 years. It was further submitted that only
if a candidate passes the AIBE, a permanent registration can be
granted. He, therefore, submitted that for considering the aforesaid
issue No.7, it will also be necessary to take into consideration the
aforesaid Regulations of the Bar Council of India. We, therefore, vide
order dated 18th May 2023 requested the Union of India, all the State
Governments and the High Courts to consider the aforesaid issue
with regard to the Regulations of the Bar Council of India.
55. The Law Commission of India in its 117th Report, dated 28th November
1986 titled - “Training of Judicial Officers”, though recommended the
fresh law graduates to enter into the judicial service, it emphasized
the need for intensive training for such fresh law graduates entering
into the judicial service. It will be relevant to refer to the following
observations of the Law Commission of India:
“4.6 …….The Law Commission is of the opinion that the
two years intensive training would outweigh the advantage,
if any, of three years practice at the Bar which often enough
hardly helps in the matter of equipping oneself.”
56. The said recommendations were considered by this Court in
the present proceedings in its judgment dated 24th August 19935
(hereinafter referred to as “Second AIJA Case”). This Court observed
thus:
“20. It has, however, become imperative, in this connection,
to take notice of the fact that the qualifications prescribed
and the procedure adopted for recruitment of the Judges
at the lowest rung are not uniform in all the States. In
view of the uniformity in the hierarchy and designations as
well as the service conditions that we have suggested, it
is necessary that all the States should prescribe uniform
qualifications and adopt uniform procedure in recruiting

5 1993 INSC 272 : (1993) 4 SCC 288
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1103

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

the judicial officers at the lowest rung in the hierarchy. In
most of the States, the minimum qualifications for being
eligible to the post of the Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate First
Class/Magistrate First Class/Munsiff Magistrate is minimum
three years' practice as a lawyer in addition to the degree
in law. In some States, however, the requirement of
practice is altogether dispensed with and judicial officers
are recruited with only a degree in law to their credit. The
recruitment of raw graduates as judicial officers without
any training or background of lawyering has not proved
to be a successful experiment. Considering the fact that
from the first day of his assuming office, the Judge has to
decide, among others, questions of life, liberty, property
and reputation of the litigants, to induct graduates fresh
from the Universities to occupy seats of such vital powers
is neither prudent nor desirable. Neither knowledge derived
from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate
substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of
the court-system and the administration of justice begotten
through legal practice. The practice involves much more
than mere advocacy. A lawyer has to interact with several
components of the administration of justice. Unless the
judicial officer is familiar with the working of the said
components, his education and equipment as a Judge is
likely to remain incomplete. The experience as a lawyer
is, therefore, essential to enable the Judge to discharge
his duties and functions efficiently and with confidence
and circumspection. Many States have hence prescribed
a minimum of three years’ practice as a lawyer as an
essential qualification for appointment as a judicial officer
at the lowest rung. It is, hence, necessary that all the
States prescribe the said minimum practice as a lawyer
as a necessary qualification for recruitment to the lowest
rung in the judiciary. In this connection, it may be pointed
out that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, no person
is eligible to be appointed a District Judge unless he has
been an advocate or a pleader for not less than seven
years while Articles 217(2)(b) and 124(3)(b) require at
least ten years’ practice as an advocate of a High Court
for the appointment of a person to the posts of the Judge
1104 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the High Court and the Judge of the Supreme Court,
respectively. We, therefore, direct that all States shall take
immediate steps to prescribe three years’ practice as a
lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment
as the judicial officer at the lowest rung.”
57. It can thus be seen that this Court noted that though there is no
uniformity in all the States with regard to minimum qualifications for
being eligible to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class/
Magistrate First Class/Munsiff Magistrate, most of the States provided
minimum three years’ practice as a lawyer in addition to the degree
in law. This Court noted that in some of the States, the requirement
of practice was altogether dispensed with, and judicial officers were
recruited with only a degree in law to their credit. This Court observed
that the recruitment of “raw graduates” as Judicial Officers without any
training or background of lawyering has not proved to be a successful
experiment. This Court further noted that from the first day of his/her
assuming office, a Judge has to decide, among others, questions of
life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants. This Court further
noted that to induct graduates fresh from the Universities to occupy
seats of such vital powers was neither prudent nor desirable.
58. This Court further found that neither knowledge derived from books nor
pre-service training could be an adequate substitute for the first-hand
experience of the working of the court-system and the administration
of justice begotten through legal practice. This Court found that
the experience as a lawyer was therefore essential to enable the
Judge to discharge his/her duties and functions efficiently and with
confidence and circumspection. This Court, therefore, directed all the
States to prescribe a minimum of three years’ practice as a lawyer
as an essential qualification for appointment as a Judicial Officer at
the lowest rung.
59. Subsequent thereto, the Shetty Commission, in its Report dated
11th November 1999, noted that though Articles 217 and 233 of the
Constitution of India prescribe a minimum experience of 10 years to
be appointed as High Court Judge and 7 years to be appointed as
District Judge, no such requirement was provided for being eligible
to be appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). It will be relevant
to refer to some of the observations made in the Shetty Commission
Report, which read thus:
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1105

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

“8.30 As to the observation of the Law Commission in
its 14th Report recommending three years practice at the
Bar, we may state that observation was evidently based
on the then existing system of legal education. The Law
Commission made that report in 1958 when the LL.B.
degree course was only of two years duration for which
law practice as a subject was not in the curriculum.
8.31 In the present system of legal education 3 years or
5 years, law practice is one of the subjects prescribed
for the students. Particularly in the curriculum under the
present 5 years law degree course, the students have to
attend Court compulsorily to get themselves educated in
the practical training in Court craft.
8.32 It would be, therefore, futile to prescribe three years
practice as an Advocate to have intimate knowledge of
the Court work as a condition for recruitment to the cadre
of Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.).
8.33 If it is not out of place to mention, that the students
coming out of the Institute like National Law School of
India University, Bangalore to be better equipped and more
informed than a junior advocate with three years standing.
The students from National Law School of India University
are the favourites for campus selection by multinationals.
Every year, multinational Companies land at the school
campus and select students of the final year by offering
them a fat salary of Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000. The entire
purpose of establishing the National Law School of India
University is to produce good law graduates for enriching
the Indian Bar. That purpose has been practically defeated
by insisting upon three years Bar practice as a precondition
for entering the judicial service.
8.34 Further, in our opinion, 3 years standing at the Bar as
the minimum qualification for entry into the judicial service
may be wholly unnecessary and uncalled for in view of the
Commission’s recommendations on Institutional training
for the selected candidates. Attention of the concerned
authorities is invited to the report of the Commission
on judicial education and training an in particular the
1106 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

broad themes of the curriculum for induction training. It
includes among other things, practical training through
field placement. The Commission has recommended the
induction training course for about one year by qualified
trainers.

RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMISSION
8.35 If intensive training is given to young and brilliant law
graduates, it may be unnecessary to prescribe three years
practice in the Bar as a condition for entering the judicial
service. It is not the opinion of any High Court or State
Government that induction to service of fresh law graduates
with brilliant academic career would be counterproductive.
We consider that it is proper and necessary to reserve
liberty to High Court and State Governments, as the case
may be, to select either Advocates with certain standing
at the Bar or outstanding law graduates with aptitude for
service. It is not correct to deny such discretion to High
Authorities like, High Courts and State Governments.
8.36 Those High Courts and State Governments who
are interested in selecting the fresh law graduates with
a scheme of intensive induction training may move the
Supreme Court for reconsidering the view taken in All
India Judges’ Association Case for deleting the condition
of three years standing as Advocate for recruitment to the
cadre of Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.). We trust and hope that
the Supreme Court will reconsider that aspect.”
60. The recommendations of the Shetty Commission were considered
by this Court in the Third AIJA Case. This Court observed thus:
“32. In All India Judges’ Assn. case [(1993) 4 SCC 288 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 148 : (1993) 25 ATC 818] (SCC at p. 314)
this Court has observed that in order to enter the judicial
service, an applicant must be an advocate of at least
three years' standing. Rules were amended accordingly.
With the passage of time, experience has shown that
the best talent which is available is not attracted to the
judicial service. A bright young law graduate after 3 years
of practice finds the judicial service not attractive enough.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1107

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after
taking into consideration the views expressed before it
by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to
have been an advocate for at least 3 years should be
done away with. After taking all the circumstances into
consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty
Commission and the argument of the learned amicus curiae
that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant
desirous of entering the judicial service to be an advocate
of at least three years' standing. We, accordingly, in the
light of experience gained after the judgment in All India
Judges case direct to the High Courts and to the State
Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh
law graduate who may not even have put in three years
of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial
service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into
the judicial service should be imparted training of not less
than one year, preferably two years.”
61. This Court accordingly directed all the High Courts and the State
Governments to amend their Rules so as to enable fresh law
graduates who may not even have a single day’s experience in
practice as a lawyer to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial
service. This Court further recommended that a fresh recruit into
the judicial service should be imparted training of not less than one
year, preferably two years.
62. When the matter was subsequently heard, learned amicus curiae as
well as counsel appearing for most of the High Courts were of the view
that the time has come to review as to whether the requirement for
minimum years of practice as provided by this Court in the Second
AIJA Case is required to be restored.
63. In response to the orders passed by this Court dated 25th April
2023 and 18th May 2023, various High Courts have submitted their
affidavits. It will be relevant to note that most of the High Courts
are in agreement that the earlier requirement of having minimum
3 years’ experience at the Bar for appearing in the examination of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) needs to be restored.
64. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has stated that some instances
have come to the notice of the High Court that some of the Civil
1108 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judges (Junior Division) who did not possess any experience at the
Bar, appointed straight away from the college to the court, are not
treating the bar members and staff members in good spirits and that
the officers are finding it difficult to handle the courts when faced with
procedural issues. It has therefore been recommended that there
should be a minimum experience of 2 years at the Bar before a
candidate is considered to be eligible for appointment as a Civil Judge
(Junior Division). At the same time, it is also recommended that the
existing training module for 2 years (1 year practical training + 1 year
institutional training) should be continued so that the candidates, on
selection into judicial service, would discharge their functions more
efficiently. The State Government has also agreed with the views
expressed by the High Court.
65. The High Court of Gauhati has recommended for a minimum 2 years
of practice to be made a requirement for a candidate being eligible
to appear in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
66. The High Court of Patna as well as the Government of Bihar have
opined that minimum 3 years’ practice as an advocate should be
introduced as a requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) as it would
be helpful in appointing experienced lawyers which would benefit
the judicial service and improve standards of judicial dispensation.
67. The State of Karnataka has stated that it is the experience of the
Bar members and Principal District Judges that due to the lack of
practical professional experience of such Civil Judges, inconvenience
is caused during the discharge of duty and day-to-day proceedings,
especially when they are passing urgent orders. The State has
therefore recommended minimum 2 years’ practice as an advocate
after completion of law degree to be made as a requirement for a
candidate being eligible to appear in the examination of Civil Judge
(Junior Division).
68. The State of Kerala as well as the High Court of Kerala have also
recommended that the requirement of minimum 3 years’ practice at
the Bar needs to be restored.
69. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has opined that experience has
shown that even candidates who are brilliant in academics having
no experience at the Bar were not able to handle court proceedings
properly. It is also stated that many oral or written complaints
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1109

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

regarding their behavioural attitude towards advocates, litigants,
their superiors and staff are being received in the High Court on
a regular basis. It is further stated that fresh law graduates having
no experience at the Bar lack maturity and experience in handling
court proceedings. It has therefore recommended to restore the
requirement of experience or practice at the Bar prior to appointment
of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
70. Both the State of Manipur and the High Court of Manipur have
recommended restoration of 3 years’ prior experience of practice so
as to understand the practical difficulties, challenges faced by lawyers
and litigants. It goes on to state that actual practicing experience is
invaluable and irreplaceable.
71. The High Court of Orissa has stated that inexperienced candidates
take time to acquaint themselves to the environment of a court
which ultimately enables them to smoothly handle the day-to-day
court proceedings. It is further stated that they are often unaware
about the court decorum and this causes inconvenience in judicial
administration. It is therefore opined by the High Cout of Orissa that
the candidates before entering into the judicial service should have
some practical knowledge about the day-to-day court proceedings and
the manner in which the cases are conducted by the advocates. It has
therefore been recommended that there must be reintroduction of the
requirement of minimum 3 years’ practice before being considered
for appointment as a Civil Judge (Junior Division).
72. The High Court of Madras as well as the High Court of Uttarakhand
have also recommended that there should be a reintroduction of
the requirement of 3 years’ minimum practice. The High Court of
Uttarakhand has stated that fresh law graduates with no exposure
to the court environment are not steeped into the culture, etiquette,
temper and conduct of the court proceedings. It further states that
this leads to advocates’ complaining about misbehaviour and giving
ill-treatment to the advocates and litigants by such new officers.
The State of Uttarakhand has also supported the views of the High
Court of Uttarakhand.
73. The High Court of Allahabad as well as the High Court of Calcutta
have also supported the reintroduction of the requirement of some
prior practice to appear for such examination.
1110 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

74. The High Court of Delhi has recommended that the minimum
requirement be 1 year of practice at the Bar.
75. Insofar as High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and the
High Court of Gujarat are concerned, they have recommended 2
years’ minimum practice.
76. It is further to be noted that though one or two High Courts have
stated that the experience should be counted from the date on
which AIBE is passed, most of the High Courts have not given their
opinion on the same. It is only the State of Orissa, the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana, the High Court of Delhi and the High Court
of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh who have recommended that the
date of experience should be counted from the date on which the
provisional registration was granted to a candidate.
77. Insofar as the State of Chhattisgarh is concerned, though the High
Court of Chhattisgarh has recommended reintroduction of a practice
of minimum 3 years, it is the Government of Chhattisgarh which has
opposed the same.
78. Though the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has recommended the
reintroduction of the requirement of minimum 2 years of experience,
the State of Haryana has opposed the same.
79. The States of Nagaland and Tripura have opposed such reintroduction.
80. It is further to be noted that insofar as the High Courts are concerned,
except the High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim, no other High Court
has opposed such reintroduction of the pre-requisite of practice at
the Bar.
81. From the affidavits of almost all the High Courts, it is seen that for
the last 20 years during which the recruitment of fresh law graduates
as Judicial Officers without a single day of practice at the Bar has
been permitted, the said endeavour has not been a successful
experience. The appointment of such fresh law graduates has led
to many problems as have been enumerated by us in the aforesaid
paragraphs on the basis of the affidavits filed by the High Courts.
82. We are conscious of the fact that in the initial years, the opportunities
available to a young lawyer, fresh from college will be minimal.
However, the exposure to courts and more particularly litigants
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1111

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

and their briefs would acquaint them with the onerous duties and
responsibilities of every stakeholder in the judicial system. It would
bring in a sensitivity to human problems, more clarity in the decision
making process and educate them of the role of the Bar in justice
dispensation.
83. The Judges from the very day on which they assume office have
to deal with the questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of
litigants. As rightly observed, neither knowledge derived from books
nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand
experience of the working of the court-system and the administration
of justice. This is possible only when a candidate is exposed to the
atmosphere in the court by assisting the seniors and observing how
the lawyers and the Judges function in the court. The candidate
should be equipped to understand the intricacies of the functions
of a Judge. The experience of various High Courts has also shown
that such fresh law graduates, upon their entry in judicial service,
begin to show behavioural and temperament problems.
84. We are therefore in agreement with the views expressed by most of
the High Courts that the requirement of reintroduction of a certain
number of years of practice would be necessary.
85. That leaves us with the question as to whether such experience
should be counted from the date on which the provisional registration/
enrolment is granted or from the date on which the candidates pass
the AIBE. Though Shri Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel, who had
raised this question has recommended that such an experience
should be counted from passing of the AIBE, which has also been
supported by Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the
Bar Council of India, the Court will have to balance the requirement
of having a minimum experience at the Bar and also provide an
opportunity to the young meritorious law graduates to appear in the
said examination.
86. There could be various reasons as to why the candidates are not
in a position to appear for AIBE. Different Universities may declare
their results at different time which may lead to a candidate losing
the opportunity to appear for such an examination in a particular
year. It will be relevant to note that after a candidate receives the
provisional registration, he/she is entitled to practice within the State
of which the Bar Council has given the said provisional registration.
1112 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the experience
should be counted from the date on which provisional registration
has been granted to a candidate.
87. Another concern that is expressed is that some candidates may only
keep the provisional registration and would be entitled to appear for
the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination after they complete 2
years from the date of provisional registration. It is submitted that a
candidate may not actually practice even for a single day and may
only on the basis of provisional registration apply for the Civil Judge
(Junior Division) Examination and this would, in turn, frustrate the
very purpose of providing an experience.
88. We find that the said concern can be addressed by providing certain
safeguards. In a Mofussil Court, there would not be much difficulty
inasmuch as taking into consideration the number of lawyers appearing
before the Court at such places, the Judicial Officers working at that
station can certify that such a candidate has practiced before such
court for a requisite number of years. The difficulty may arise at
larger stations or in metropolitan cities. At such places, it could be
provided that a certificate by an advocate having a minimum standing
of 10 years duly endorsed by a Principal Judicial Officer of such a
District or a Principal Judicial Officer at a station, certifying that such
a candidate has actually practiced for the requisite number of years
would take care of the said concern. Insofar as the candidates who
are practicing before the High Courts or this Court, they shall be
certified by an advocate who has a minimum standing of 10 years
duly endorsed by an officer designated by that High Court or this
Court. We are also of the view that the experience of the candidates
which they have gained while working as Law Clerks with any of the
Judges or Judicial Officers in the country should also be considered
while calculating their total number of years of practice.

IV. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
89. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we issue the following directions:
(i) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country
shall amend the relevant service Rules to the effect that the
quota of reservation for LDCE for promotion from the cadre of
Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service is
increased to 25%;
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1113

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

(ii) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country
shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that the
minimum qualifying service required to appear in the LDCE
for promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to
the Higher Judicial Service be reduced to 3 years’ service as
a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the total service required
to be undertaken, including service rendered as a Civil Judge
(Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division), be set at a
minimum of 7 years’ service;
(iii) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country
shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that 10%
of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) be
reserved for accelerated promotion of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) candidates through LDCE mechanism. The minimum
qualifying service required for appearing in the said LDCE shall
be three years’ service as Civil Judge (Junior Division);
(iv) Needless to state that if any post reserved for LDCE for either
Civil Judge (Senior Division) or for the Higher Judiciary remains
vacant, the same shall be filled through regular promotion on
the basis of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ in that particular year. Filling
up of the vacant posts in the ratio considered for LDCE will
have to be carried out from the simultaneous selection process
carried out for regular promotions of the same year;
(v) The High Courts and the Governments of the States where the
vacancies for the LDCE are not being calculated based on the
cadre strength shall amend the relevant service rules to the
effect that the vacancies for LDCE be calculated on the basis
of cadre strength;
(vi) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country
where the Rules are not framed or if they are framed but are
not adequate to judge the suitability of a candidate for being
promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the
Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall frame fresh Rules
or amend the existing Rules keeping in mind various factors
like: (i) whether the candidate possesses updated knowledge of
law; (ii) the quality of judgments rendered by the Judicial Officer;
(iii) ACRs of the Judicial Officer of the preceding five years; (iv)
disposal rate in the preceding five years; (v) performance of the
1114 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judicial Officer in the viva voce; and (vi) general perceptions
and awareness as also communication skills;
(vii) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country
shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that
candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for the
post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced
for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for the said
examination. To fulfill the said requirement, the Rules shall
mandate that the candidate produces a certificate to that effect
duly certified either by the Principal Judicial Officer of that Court
or by an advocate of that Court having a minimum standing
of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of
such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer at such a station.
Insofar as the candidates who are practicing before the High
Courts or this Court, they shall be certified by an advocate
who has a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by an
officer designated by that High Court or this Court. We further
direct that the experience of the candidates which they have
gained while working as Law Clerks with any of the Judges or
Judicial Officers in the country should also be considered while
calculating their total number of years of practice. The Rules
shall also mandate that the candidates who are appointed to the
post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to their selection
through the examination must compulsorily undergo at least 1
year of training before presiding in a Court;
(viii) It is directed that the number of years of practice completed by
a candidate desirous of appearing in the examination for the
post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) be calculated from the date
of their provisional enrolment/registration with the concerned
State Bar Council;
(ix) It is further directed that the said requirement of minimum years
of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the concerned
High Court has already initiated the selection process for the
post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of this
judgment and shall be applicable only from the next recruitment
process; and
(x) All the amendments in terms of the aforesaid directions shall
be carried out by the High Courts within a period of three
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1115

All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others

months from the date of this judgment and the concerned State
Governments shall consider and approve the same within a
further period of three months.
90. Needless to state that all such recruitment processes which have
been kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present
proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with the Rules which were
applicable on the date of advertisement/notification.
91. We place on record our deep gratitude for the assistance rendered
by Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned amicus curiae ably assisted
by Mr. Ankit Yadav and Mr. Aditya Sidhra, learned counsel. Shri
Bhatnagar has tirelessly consolidated the stands of various High
Courts and various State Governments and also given his valuable
suggestions with regard to the directions to be issued by this Court.
We also place on record our appreciation for the Senior Counsel
and counsel appearing on behalf of the various High Courts, State
Governments and other stakeholders.

Result of the case: Directions issued.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain