On May 20, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered its judgement in the case of All India Judges Association vs. Union of India. Through this judgement, the Hon’ble Court mandated a minimum of three years of practice as an advocate for candidates applying for entry-level posts in judicial services. This criterion is mandatory for all future recruitment processes. According to the judgement, a candidate must furnish a certificate duly signed by either the Principal Judicial Officer of the respective court or an advocate with a minimum standing of ten years, duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of that district. For candidates practicing before the Supreme Court or a High Court, a certificate from an advocate with at least ten years of professional experience, duly attested by a designated official, is required. Additionally, the Hon’ble Court clarified that time spent serving as a law clerk would be considered when calculating the total years of legal practice.
With this decision, the three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Court, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Shri B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Shri Masih, and Hon’ble Justice Shri K. Vinod Chandran, overturned its 2002 judgement. In the 2002 judgement, the Hon’ble Court had observed that the three-year practice mandate deterred many talented individuals from applying for judicial services. Whereas in the present case, the Hon’ble Court expressed concerns about recruiting fresh law graduates without a single day of practice as judicial officers. The Hon’ble Court noted that judicial officers, from the commencement of their tenure, must address issues concerning life, liberty, property, and the reputation of litigants. In such situations, theoretical knowledge from books and pre-service training is insufficient to meet the complex demands of judicial service. The Hon’ble Court opined that first-hand experience of the court system and the administration of justice is irreplaceable.
The three-judge bench, also issued directions regarding the Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE). The Hon’ble Court directed that the quota for promotion from the Civil Judge Cadre to District Judge through the LDCE be increased from 10% to 25%. Additionally, the minimum required service for a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to become eligible for the LDCE was reduced to three years. The Court further directed that 10% of the positions be earmarked for fast-track promotion of Civil Judges (Junior Division) to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Cadre for those who have completed three years of qualifying service through the LDCE. The High Courts and State Governments were instructed to amend their service rules to ensure that LDCE vacancies align with the strength of the cadre. The Hon’ble Court also mandated the enactment of new rules or the revision of existing ones in states and High Courts where rules for promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Higher Judicial Services are insufficient. The parameters for assessing these rules were also outlined.
This judgment is pronounced with the intention of ensuring that the judicial system should have a foundational understanding of courtroom procedures and the practical legal skills.