Case Summary: All India Judges Association and Others vs Union of India and Others (2025)
(2025) 05 SC CK 0098
In The Supreme Court Of India
Case No : I.A. No.93974 Of 2019, 72900, 73015, 40695 Of 2021, 50269, 201893 Of 2022 In Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 Of 1989
All India Judges Association And Others Vs. Union Of India And Others
Date of Decision : 20-05-2025
Hon'ble Judges : B.R. Gavai, CJI ; Augustine George Masih, J ; K. Vinod Chandran, J
Bench : Full Bench
Acts Referred: Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 217, Article 217(2)(b), Article 233, Article 233(2)
Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 — Rule 5(3)(i), Rule 5(3)(ii)
Citation : (2025) 05 SC CK 0098
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2370833-all-india-judges-association-and?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=
Facts of the Case
The case arose from multiple IAs concerning qualification, promotion, and selection criteria for Judicial Services (Civil Judge Junior Division and Higher Judicial Services). The applicants sought clarity on quota distribution for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), eligibility requirements, and promotion methods for District Judges.
Law Points Raised
1. Whether the quota for LDCE should be restored from 10% to 25%.
2. Whether minimum qualifying experience for LDCE should be reduced.
3. Whether quota should be reserved for meritorious Civil Judge (Junior Division) for promotion.
4. Whether quota should be based on cadre strength or annual vacancies.
5. Whether suitability test should be introduced for promotion under 65% quota.
6. Whether minimum 3 years practice requirement for Civil Judge (Jr. Division) exam should be restored.
7. Whether practice years should be counted from provisional enrolment or passing AIBE.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred
• Constitution of India: Articles 217, 217(2)(b), 233, 233(2)
• Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005: Rule 5(3)(i), 5(3)(ii)
Judgements Referred
All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, and earlier related precedents.
Obiter Dicta
The Court observed that incentivising merit within judicial cadres is necessary to maintain standards, but such incentives must not undermine seniority and cadre balance.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that while a merit-based system is essential, balance must be maintained with seniority. LDCE quota is to remain limited (10%) instead of being restored to 25%, and suitability tests may be introduced for promotions under merit-cum-seniority basis.
Final Ruling
The case was disposed of with directions. The Court clarified promotion policies, maintained 10% LDCE quota, declined restoration to 25%, upheld seniority-based promotions, and permitted States/High Courts to frame detailed rules within the constitutional framework.
Summary
This landmark decision clarified judicial service promotion mechanisms, emphasised balance between merit and seniority, maintained LDCE quota at 10%, and reinforced the constitutional framework governing judicial appointments and promotions.