Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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 1100 the establishment of a Judicial Academy. This 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 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 find that the High Courts and the State [2025] 5 S.C.R. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others 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. 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). 1102
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 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.”
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 1993 INSC 272 : (1993) 4 SCC 288 [2025] 5 S.C.R. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others 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 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 1104 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 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’ 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: [2025] 5 S.C.R. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others “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.). 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 1106 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 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. [2025] 5 S.C.R. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others 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 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.
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 1108 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 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 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 [2025] 5 S.C.R. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others 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 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 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. 1110
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 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 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 [2025] 5 S.C.R. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others 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 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 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. 1112 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 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 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%; [2025] 5 S.C.R. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (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 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 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 of the preceding five years; (iv) disposal rate in the preceding five years; (v) performance of the 1114 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 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; (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 [2025] 5 S.C.R. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others 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 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. Result of the case: Directions issued. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain