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

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 735
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-20
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, Augustine George Masih, K. Vinod Chandran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-india-judges-association-and-others-v-union-of-india-and-others-38645
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

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 Servicecadre 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 Servicecadre 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,944 of 101,661. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39944 for what follows._

[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 Servicecadre 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 Servicecadre 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 meritcum-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 meritcum-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-cumseniority. 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%.