All India Judges Association Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

CASE TITLE & CITATION 

Title: All India Judges Association Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.  Citation: Writ Petition (c) No. 1022 of 1989 

COURT NAME & BENCH 

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Bench:Justice B. R. Gavai (CJI), Justice Augustine George, Justice K. Vinod Chandran  Type: Inherent/Original Jurisdiction 

DATE OF JUDGMENT 

Date: 20th May 2025 

PARTIES INVOLVED 

i) Petitioners: All India Judges Association and others, representing judicial officers  across the country. 

ii) Respondents: Union of India and others, representing central and state  governments. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

i) The matter stems from a series of writ petitions beginning in 1989 (W.P. (C) No.  1022/1989) concerning service conditions, pay, promotion, and recruitment of  judicial officers. 

ii) Over time, the Supreme Court had passed multiple orders (1992, 1993, 2002,  2010, etc.) shaping recruitment and promotions within the judiciary (known as the  AIJA cases). 

iii) Several Interlocutory Applications (IAs) were filed between 2019–2022 raising  issues like: 

(a) Restoration of the 25% quota for promotion to Higher Judicial Service  (District Judge cadre) via Limited Departmental Competitive Examination  (LDCE). 

(b) Reduction of qualifying years of service for appearing in LDCE.

(c) Reservation of quota for meritorious Civil Judges (Junior Division).

(d) Need for a suitability test for promotions.

(e) Restoration of “minimum 3 years’ practice” requirement for Civil Judge  (Junior Division) examination. 

iv) These issues required fresh consideration in light of evolving judicial needs and  feedback from High Courts and State Governments. 

ISSUES RAISED 

i) Should the LDCE quota for promotion to District Judges be restored from 10% to  25%? 

ii) Should the minimum qualifying experience for LDCE be reduced? iii) Should a merit-based quota be introduced for Civil Judge (Junior Division) to  Senior Division promotions? 

iv) If yes, what percentage and experience should be prescribed? 

v) Should LDCE quota be calculated on cadre strength or annual vacancies? vi) Should there be a suitability test for Civil Judge (Senior Division) promotion to  District Judge? 

vii) Should the requirement of minimum 3 years’ practice for Civil Judge (Junior  Division) entry exam be restored? 

viii) If restored, should practice be counted from provisional enrolment or from  passing AIBE? 

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 

i) Petitioners (AIJA): 

(a) Sought restoration of the 25% LDCE quota to encourage merit.

(b)Reduction in experience requirement would create real  incentive for talented judicial officers. 

(c) Argued for reintroduction of 3 years’ bar practice for better  preparedness of judicial entrants. 

ii) Respondents: 

(a) Varied responses — some High Courts supported restoration to  25%, others preferred retaining 10%.

(b)Divergent views on reducing LDCE eligibility experience  (some suggested 2–3 years, others opposed reduction). 

(c) Majority supported restoring practice requirement for Civil  Judge (JD) citing poor performance of fresh graduates. 

JUDGMENT / FINAL DECISION 

i) LDCE Quota restored from 10% to 25%, but with a fallback unfilled seat to  revert to regular promotion quota in the same year. 

ii) Experience for LDCE reduced from 5 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) to 3  years, with a cumulative 7 years’ judicial service (JD + SD). 

iii) Quota for Civil Judge (JD) to SD introduced 10% quota via LDCE, minimum  3 years as JD required. 

iv) Calculation of quota to be based on cadre strength, not annual vacancies. v) Suitability test directed High Courts/States to frame rules ensuring suitability  tests for promotions to District Judge under merit-cum-seniority quota. vi) Practice Requirement restored minimum 3 years’ practice at the Bar for Civil  Judge (JD) entry exam. 

vii)Counting of experience to be counted from provisional enrolment/registration (not AIBE) to avoid exclusion of candidates due to procedural delays.

RATIO DECIDENDI 

i) The Court emphasized judicial efficiency, meritocracy, and uniformity across  states. 

ii) Restored LDCE quota to incentivize meritorious officers and improve quality of  District Judges. 

iii) Held that lack of prior bar practice led to poor preparedness of judges; hence 3  years’ practice restored. 

iv) Balanced international and constitutional principles with practical challenges  faced by High Courts in recruitment. 

v) Reiterated earlier precedents particularly AIJA cases of 1992, 1993, 2002, and  2010, while modifying them to reflect present-day realities. 

CONCLUSION

i) This judgment reforms judicial service recruitment and promotions after  decades of piecemeal directions. 

ii) Ensures balance between merit and seniority, and between academic  excellence and practical bar experience. 

iii) Strengthens the subordinate judiciary, which is the “foundation of the judicial  system.” 

iv) Marks a significant continuation of the AIJA series of cases, shaping the  career trajectory of judges in India.