All India Judges Association vs Union Of India

2025 INSC 735 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NO.93974 OF 2019 WITH I.A. NOS. 72900, 73015 AND 40695 OF 2021 WITH I.A. NOS.50269 AND 201893 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1022 OF 1989

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS …PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

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% Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by as determined by this Court in the case of All India POOJA SHARMA

Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and Date: 2025.05.20 15:34:42 IST Reason:

others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247?...................... 9

1 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 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

2 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

(ii) In the alternative, modify the order dated 20th April

3 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.

4 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%.

5 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

6 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?

7

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

8 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.

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’

9 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

1 (1992) 1 SCC 119 : 1991 INSC 290 2 (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 INSC 165

10 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%.

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

11 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 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

12 (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 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

13 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,

14 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 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

3 (2010) 15 SCC 170

15 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.

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

16 (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,

17 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 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

18 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

19 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 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

4 (2022) 7 SCC 494 : 2022 INSC 445

20 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 : (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

21 (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

22 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.

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.

23

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

24 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 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

25 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

26 v. Punjab

a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be eligible for LDCE - 14 to 15 years

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.

27

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, as recommended by some of the States, the

28 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

29 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 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

30 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

31 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 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

32 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 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:

33 (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 the establishment of a Judicial Academy. This

34 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

35 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

36 find that the High Courts and the State 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.

37 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).

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

38 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.”

39

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 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

5 (1993) 4 SCC 288 : 1993 INSC 272

40 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 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

41 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'

42 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:

“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.).

43 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 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

44 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. 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

45 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.

46

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 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

47 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

48 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 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

49 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

50 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.

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

51 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

52 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 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

53 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

54 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. 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

55 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

56 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%;

(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

57 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

58 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

59 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;

(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

60 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;

61 (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 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

62 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.

.............................CJI (B.R. GAVAI)

............................................J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

…..............................J (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 20, 2025.

63