All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025 marked a significant turn in the eligibility criteria to appear for civil judge junior division exams. This judgment restores the condition of a minimum 3 years practice as an advocate as a requirement necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service examinations. The duration of practice may be counted from the date of provisional enrollment. However, this condition shall not be applicable to recruitment processes that have already been initiated by the High Courts prior to the date of this decision. In other words, this requirement shall only govern future recruitments. All India Judges Association v. Union of India 2025 addressed several other issues concerning judicial appointments and advancements by promotions through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The Apex court also decided if a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious candidates from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) to maintain an incentive for merit.

All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2025) Historical Context and Facts

The case at hand: All India Judges Association vs Union of India revolves around the eligibility criteria for entry into the Judicial Service in India, mainly focusing on whether a minimum of three years' practice as an Advocate should be a mandatory requirement for candidates aspiring to enter the Judicial Service. The following are the brief facts of All India Judges Association vs. Union of India -

• 1991: In pursuance to the All India Judges Association v. Union of India 1991 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 (hereinafter referred to as "Shetty Commission"). 
• 1993: In the All India Judges Association vs Union of India 1993 case, the Supreme Court observed that for entry into the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate with at least three years of practice. Based on this observation, the relevant rules were amended. Over time, it was found that the Judicial Service was failing to attract the best available talent. A promising young law graduate, after gaining three years of practice, often found the Judicial Service insufficiently appealing.
• Shetty Commission: After considering the representations made before it by various authorities, the removal of the requirement of three years' standing as an Advocate was recommended. The commission also recommended Recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre), a 25% quota for direct recruitment from advocates and 75% by promotion. After thorough deliberations, the Shetty Commission submitted its Report on 11th November 1999.
• 2002: In All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2002, the Court directed the High Courts and the State Governments to amend their rules, thereby enabling fresh law graduates, who may not have even completed three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the Judicial Service. However, the Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India also recommended that every fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should undergo training for a period of not less than one year, and preferably for two years. 

All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002) also adopted the Shetty Commission's recommendation for a 25% quota for direct recruitment from advocates and 75% by promotion. Within the 75% promotion quota, the Court directed a division: 50% by merit-cum-seniority with a suitability test and 25% strictly by merit through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for Civil Judges (Senior Division) with at least five years' qualifying service. The judgment given in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002) prescribed a minimum of five years' qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to be eligible for the LDCE. In the All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2002) case, it was also stated that for the 50% (now 65%) promotion quota based on merit-cum-seniority, High Courts should devise a test to assess legal knowledge and continued efficiency of candidates. 

• 2010: In All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2010, the Supreme Court found that there was a large number of unfilled vacancies in the 25% LDCE category, which was not appropriate for the Judiciary. Therefore, the Apex Court found that the 25% quota reserved for LDCE should be reduced to 10%. 

Download All India Judges Association vs Union of India PDF

The following issues were addressed in All India Judges Association vs Union of India -

1. Should a minimum of three years of legal practice be mandated as a prerequisite for candidates appearing in Civil Judge Junior division judicial service examinations?
2. If yes, how should this requirement be applied to ongoing and future recruitment processes?
3. Whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short, ‘LDCE’) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service, needs to be restored to 25% as per All India Judges Association vs Union of India 1991 case?
4. Whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the aforesaid examination needs to be reduced, and if so, by how many years? 
5. Whether a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious candidates from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) to maintain an incentive for merit in the Junior division? 
6. If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof and what should be the minimum experience as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)? 
7. 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? 
8. 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? 

All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2025) Judgment

The judgment given by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025 delves into the prospective requirement of a minimum of 3 years practice as an advocate as an eligibility criteria to appear for judicial service examination and how this judgment is to be implemented: 

• Three-Year Legal Practice Requirement Restored: (Issue 1&2)

In All India Judges Association v. Union of India 2025 it was held that a candidate must have at least three years of practice as an advocate to be eligible for judicial service (civil judge, junior division). This condition was made mandatory and binding across all states.

• Prospective Implementation:

It was held in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025 that the requirement will not apply to judicial recruitment processes already initiated by High Courts. It will apply only to future recruitment cycles (i.e., the next round of appointments).

• Amendment of Rules by State Governments:

All State Governments were directed to amend recruitment rules accordingly to reflect the reintroduced eligibility criteria given in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025.

• Certification of Practice:

Proof of three years of legal practice must be certified by an advocate with at least 10 years of practice at the Bar. The certificate must be endorsed by the relevant judicial officer (or an officer designated by the High Court/Supreme Court).

• Law Clerkship Experience Counted:

This case recognized the experience as a law clerk to a judge and counted it toward fulfilling the three-year requirement given in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025.

• Start Date of Legal Practice:

It was held in All India Judges Association v Union of India 2025 that legal practice is to be counted from the date of provisional enrollment, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The Court acknowledged that AIBE is conducted at irregular intervals; hence the fairer cutoff is the provisional enrollment date. 

• Recruitment process, which was in abeyance:

All such recruitment processes which were kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present proceedings, after this judgment were allowed to proceed in accordance with the rules which were applicable on the date of advertisement/notification

• General Directions:

The Supreme Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India also directed all the High Courts to implement amendments to service rules within three months, which were approved by the concerned State Governments within a further three months.

• Restoration of the 10% LDCE quota for promotion to Higher Judicial Service (District Judge) to 25%:

The Apex Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025 found that restoring the LDCE quota to 25% would provide a greater incentive for meritorious officers in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre to get accelerated promotion to the District Judge cadre. To prevent vacant posts from impacting the judiciary, the Court decided that if sufficient candidates are not selected through the LDCE, the unfilled posts shall revert to the regular promotion quota based on merit-cum-seniority and be filled in the same year.

• Reduction of minimum qualifying experience for the LDCE: 

The Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025 found that the existing 5-year requirement for a Civil Judge (Senior Division) for LDCE eligibility frustrated the purpose of accelerated promotion for meritorious officers, as regular promotion often occurred around the same timeframe. To restore the incentive, the Court decided to reduce the minimum experience required as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to 3 years for appearing in the LDCE. However, it also added a minimum cumulative service requirement. In All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025, it was directed that all the High Courts and State Governments must amend service rules to reduce the minimum qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) for appearing in the LDCE for Higher Judicial Service to 3 years. Additionally, the total service as a Judicial Officer (including Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division)) required for LDCE eligibility must be a minimum of 7 years.

•  Reservation of a quota for meritorious Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) through LDCE:

The Court found that LDCE, as applied to the Higher Judicial Service promotion, should also be adopted for promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division). It was directed in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025 that all High Courts and state governments must reserve 10% of posts in the Civil Judge senior division cadre for promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) through an LDCE mechanism. 

• Calculation of departmental exam quota (LDCE)

To ensure uniformity across the country, the Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025 decided that the quota for LDCE should be calculated based on the cadre strength, aligning with the practice in most states.

• Introduction of a suitability test for promoting Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge (65% quota based on merit-cum-seniority)

The Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India 2025 reiterated the necessity for High Courts to frame rules for determining the suitability of candidates for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. The Apex Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India did not give any strict formula. Still, it acknowledged some key factors such as updated knowledge of the law, quality of judgments, ACRs of the preceding five years, disposal rate in the preceding 5 years, performance in viva voce, and general awareness/ perception/ communication skills.

The Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025 noted that appointing fresh law graduates without practical experience has led to problems in the judicial system. The decision to drop the practice requirement in 2002 in the All India Judges Association case raised concerns about whether fresh law graduates were ready to take on the responsibilities of a judge. This judgment also touched upon various other issues that needed to be addressed for a long time and gave clarification on LDCE, its quota, and the criteria for such examinations.