Judiciary - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 3-year minimum practice - The Supreme Court reinstated a minimum three-year practice requirement for advocates applying for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, reversing the earlier relaxation from the 2002 All India Judges Association case. The decision revealed a lack of consensus among High Courts and States, with most supporting...
Judiciary - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025
3-year minimum practice - The Supreme Court reinstated a minimum three-year practice requirement for advocates applying for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, reversing the earlier relaxation from the 2002 All India Judges Association case. The decision revealed a lack of consensus among High Courts and States, with most supporting the three-year practice condition alongside a law degree, while Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Nagaland, and Tripura opposed any such requirement. The High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim also resisted the mandate, and conflicting stances emerged between certain High Courts and their respective State Governments, such as Chhattisgarh and Punjab & Haryana. The Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts endorsed prior practice but did not specify a minimum duration. The Court clarified that the practice period is calculated from provisional enrollment and does not apply to ongoing recruitment processes. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2025 INSC 735
3-year minimum practice - The Supreme Court restored the 3-year minimum practice condition for entry into judicial service but clarified that this requirement will not apply to recruitment processes already notified by High Courts or States prior to the judgment. The condition will apply only to future recruitment processes. Recruitment processes previously held in abeyance due to this case may now proceed. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2025 INSC 735
3-year minimum practice - The Supreme Court restored the requirement of a minimum of three years of practice as an advocate for eligibility to apply for entry-level judicial service posts (Civil Judge, Junior Division). The period of practice may be reckoned from provisional enrollment and includes experience as law clerks. The condition does not apply to recruitment processes initiated by High Courts before May 20, 2025, but applies to future recruitments. All High Courts and State Governments are directed to amend service rules accordingly. Candidates must provide a certificate from the Principal Judicial Officer or an advocate with a minimum 10-year standing, endorsed by the designated officer, to verify practice. The Court observed that allowing fresh law graduates without practical experience into judicial service has been counterproductive, as firsthand court experience is essential for effective judicial functioning. The decision overrules the 2002 judgment in All India Judges Association case, which had removed the minimum practice requirement. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2025 INSC 735
Civil Judge Appointments – Candidates denied appointment for submitting category certificates beyond the cut-off date - Advertisement silent on certificate issuance date – Held, the Advertisement appears to be silent on the aspect of last date of issuance of valid category certificate, however, clause (i) and (iii) of paragraph 6 explicitly provide that the candidates from concerned categories therein were to furnish certificate issued by the competent authority as per rules. Clauses 1 and 2 of paragraph 18 clarified that candidates should only apply under a said category if they meet all the eligibility conditions as per the Advertisement. The Subsequent Notice, which was issued by the High Court on 04.08.2022, cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any basis. It specified that the certificate belonging to the concerned reserved category should have been issued prior or upto 31.08.2021 i.e. the last date of receipt of the application in pursuance to the Advertisement. This was because the Advertisement required a candidate to possess eligibility upto the cut-off date. Thus, the Subsequent Notice issued was in consonance with law and as per the Advertisement, applicable Rules, instructions and circulars issued by the competent authority. The plea of the appellants is unsustainable and deserves to be rejected. No relaxation can be granted in the given facts and circumstances of the case nor can it be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of any such discretionary clause in the Advertisement/Rules/Instructions. Appeal dismissed. (Para 26 & 36) Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 405 : 2025 INSC 463 : AIR 2025 SC 2232
Court Managers - The concept of Court Managers was introduced by the 13th Finance Commission to assist judges in administrative functions and case management at district, sessions, and High Court levels, with similar recommendations from the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). Despite prior directions in the same proceedings (judgment dated August 2, 2018) to frame rules for their service conditions, duties, and regularization, many High Courts and State Governments failed to comply, resulting in Court Managers continuing on contractual or ad-hoc basis, with some services discontinued due to funding shortages. Whether existing Court Managers working on contractual or ad-hoc basis should be regularized, and whether High Courts should frame rules for their recruitment and service conditions to ensure administrative efficiency in the judiciary. Held, the Supreme Court, expressing concern over non-compliance with prior directions, directed the regularization of all existing Court Managers (subject to suitability tests) with effect from their initial appointment, without entitlement to salary arrears. High Courts were mandated to frame/amend recruitment rules modeled on the Assam Rules of 2018, with State Governments required to approve them within three months. Court Managers were to be classified as Class II gazetted officers, working under specified supervision, with duties ensuring no overlap with those of Registrars. Directions: 1. All High Courts to frame/amend rules on recruitment and service conditions of Court Managers, using Assam Rules of 2018 as model, and submit to State Governments within 3 months (with liberty for suitable changes). 2. State Governments to approve rules within 3 months. 3. Minimum classification as Class II gazetted officers for pay, allowances, and benefits. 4. High Court-appointed Court Managers to work under Registrar General's supervision. 5. District Court-appointed Court Managers to work under Registrar/Superintendent of concerned courts. 6. High Court Rules Committees to ensure duties do not overlap with Registrars'. 7. Existing contractual/ad-hoc Court Managers' services to continue and be regularized subject to suitability test under rules. 8. Regularization effective from initial appointment date, entitling continuation of service but no arrears or salary differences. 9. Personal regularization to be completed within 3 months of rule approval. 10. Registrar Generals of High Courts to adhere to timelines. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : 2025 INSC 713
Court of Records - The Supreme Court has reiterated that High Courts are Courts of Record and that whatever is recorded in their proceedings is presumed to be correct and cannot be contradicted later by parties or counsel- Petition disposed of petition with liberty to file an appropriate application before High Court to address the grievance regarding the unauthorized concession. [Relied on State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. 1982 2 SCC 463; Para 2-4] Savita v. Satyabhan Dixit, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1096
Dignity of CJI's Office – Protocol Lapse – Dismissal – Nominal Costs Imposed – The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL filed by a lawyer seeking action against Maharashtra officials for protocol lapses during the Chief Justice of India's visit to Mumbai on May 18, 2025. The Court labeled the petition as “publicity interest litigation” filed for “cheap publicity” and criticized the exaggeration of trivial issues. Noting the officials' apology and the CJI's request to close the matter, the Court deemed the petition unnecessary. Considering the petitioner's status as a young lawyer with seven years of practice, the Court imposed a nominal cost of Rs. 7,000 instead of heavier costs. The Court underscored the need to uphold the dignity of the CJI's office and cautioned against filing frivolous petitions that invite controversy to the institution. (Paras 6–10) Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 623
Enhancement of Retirement Age - All India Judges Association Case - Petition filed for seeking enhancement of the retirement age of district judges in Madhya Pradesh to 62 years - M.P. High Court rejected the petition on the grounds that the decision of Apex Court in All India Judges Association Case (2002) does not allow it. Held, there is no impediment in permitting the state of Madhya Pradesh to increase the age of superannuation of judicial officers working in the state of MP to the age of 61 years. Relied on order passed in case of clarification sought by Telangana High Court wherein increase in the age of retirement was allowed citing it is beneficial to the Judicial Officers. If M.P. High Court rules framed by State permits and if High Court takes a decision to enhance the age of retirement to 61 years, the same would be permissible. Directed M.P. High Court on its administrative side to take a decision at its earliest within a period of 3 months. (Para 4 - 6) Madhya Pradesh Judges Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 664
High Court Rules (Calcutta) - Rule 26 - Roster Allocation - Chief Justice's Power - Judicial Discipline - Division Bench of the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide a writ petition when the case was not allocated to it by the Chief Justice, who is the master of the roster. The Court reiterated that consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction, and any adjudication beyond the assigned roster is void. The impugned order of the Division Bench, which had allowed the writ petition, was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration by a bench assigned by the Chief Justice. (Para 7) Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers v. GRSE Workmens Union, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 322 : 2025 INSC 363
In a landmark ruling affirming judicial independence and equality under Article 14, the Supreme Court held that all retired High Court judges are entitled to full and equal pensionary benefits under the "One Rank One Pension" principle, irrespective of their date of appointment, source of entry (district judiciary or Bar), length of service, or status as permanent or additional judges. Discrimination in terminal benefits post-retirement violates constitutional equality, as judges in service receive uniform treatment. The Court issued comprehensive directions: 1. Retired Chief Justices of High Courts shall receive a full pension of ₹15 lakhs per annum. 2. Other retired High Court judges (including additional judges) shall receive ₹13.5 lakhs per annum. 3. Full pension applies regardless of service breaks between district judiciary retirement and High Court elevation. 4. Judges elevated from district judiciary post-introduction of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) are entitled to full pension; States must refund judges' NPS contributions (with accrued dividends) but retain State contributions. 5. Family pension and gratuity extend to widows/widowers or family members of judges dying in harness, without minimum service qualifiers, by aggregating career service periods. 6. All allowances, including leave encashment, pension commutation, and provident fund, shall comply with the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The judgment, pronounced by CJI Gavai, emphasizes that post-retirement benefits are essential for judicial dignity, rejecting distinctions based on entry mode or pension schemes. Certain writ petitions by former judges were also considered. In Re Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2025 INSC 726
Increase in LDCE Quota - Reduction in Qualifying Service - Accelerated Promotion for Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Restoration of Advocate Practice Requirement - Vacancy Filling and Calculation - Suitability Criteria for Promotion - Directions - The Supreme Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend service rules to increase the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge (Higher Judicial Service) from 10% to 25%. The minimum qualifying service for Civil Judge (Senior Division) to appear in LDCE for promotion to Higher Judicial Service reduced to 3 years, with a total minimum service of 7 years (including Civil Judge (Junior Division) service). 10% of posts in Civil Judge (Senior Division) reserved for accelerated promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) through LDCE, with a minimum qualifying service of 3 years. Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants must have a minimum of 3 years of practice as an advocate. Unfilled LDCE posts to be filled through regular promotion based on 'merit-cum-seniority' in the same year. Vacancies for LDCE to be calculated based on cadre strength where not already implemented. High Courts and State Governments to frame or amend rules to assess suitability for promotion to Higher Judicial Service based on: Updated knowledge of law, Quality of judgments ACRs of the preceding 5 years, Disposal rate in the preceding 5 years, Performance in viva voce, General perceptions, awareness, and communication skills. All High Courts and State Governments to amend relevant service rules to implement the above changes. Ensure rules are framed or amended to assess candidate suitability for promotion to Higher Judicial Service. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2025 INSC 735
In-House Inquiry Committee Report – The Writ Petition sought a writ of mandamus to initiate action against the third respondent based on allegations and the In-House Inquiry Committee's report. The report and the third respondent's response were forwarded by the Chief Justice of India to the President and Prime Minister of India. The Court declined to entertain the petition, observing that the petitioners had not sought redressal by filing a representation before the appropriate authorities. Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 649
Judges Protection Act, 1985 - Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against quasi-judicial officer merely on ground of passing wrong order. Mere "wrong orders" without allegations of corruption, extraneous influence, or dishonesty cannot justify disciplinary proceedings against the officer. (Para 9 & 16) Amresh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : 2025 INSC 417
Judicial accountability - Freedom of Press - Sub judice debate - Contempt of Court - Liberal democracy - In a landmark pronouncement affirming the symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and the media in a liberal democracy, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order directing the removal of a Wikipedia page detailing a defamation suit by Asian News International (ANI) against Wikipedia editors. The High Court had deemed the page "prima facie contemptuous" for reporting the judge's warning that Wikipedia risked shutdown in India absent deletion of allegedly defamatory content against ANI. The Court held that courts, as public institutions, must remain receptive to public discourse, debates, and constructive criticism, including on matters sub judice. Vigorous debate by the public and press on important issues—even pending before courts—is essential for democratic vitality and judicial introspection. The judiciary and media, as foundational pillars of India's constitutional framework, must mutually supplement each other to sustain a thriving liberal democracy. However, critics must refrain from scandalizing the court or judges, warranting contempt action where established (per Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer's principles). Courts cannot proactively censor media by mandating content deletions; such overreach undermines free speech. The ruling echoes the Court's prior observations in the farmers' protests matter, rejecting blanket prohibitions on public protests during sub judice proceedings. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 550 : 2025 INSC 656
Judicial Officers' Pay - Directions - Increase of posts of District Judges - Constitution of Committees - Payment of Arrears - Regular Meetings - Clarification on Allowances - The Supreme Court directed the High Courts and State Governments to frame rules regarding the increase of posts of District Judges in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale categories. All High Courts were directed to constitute Committees for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary within four weeks, with a Nodal Officer appointed to address day-to-day grievances of judicial officers. States were directed to pay arrears to judicial officers, including Special Judicial Magistrates, within three months. The Committees were directed to meet at regular intervals (not exceeding three months) to ensure timely resolution of grievances. The Court clarified that judicial officers are entitled to higher qualification allowances at every ACP stage, irrespective of promotions or ACP benefits. The Court emphasized the importance of timely implementation of its orders and the need for institutional mechanisms to address the service conditions of judicial officers. The directions were issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, binding all State Governments and High Courts to comply. All India Judicial Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 130
Judicial Officers' Pay - Implementation of Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) Recommendations - The Court addressed the non-implementation of the SNJPC recommendations, particularly regarding the payment of super-time scale and selection grade scales for judicial officers, which were approved by the Court in its order dated 19.05.2023. The Court emphasized the need for timely payment of arrears and directed the constitution of Committees for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary (CSCDJ) in each High Court to oversee the implementation of these recommendations. All India Judicial Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 130
Judicial Officers' Pay - Individual Grievances - Miscellaneous Applications - The Court disposed of several intervention applications and clarified that individual grievances should be addressed by the respective High Courts through the newly constituted Committees. The Court directed the Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary in the High Court of Telangana to address the grievance of a petitioner regarding inadequate pension, in line with the Court's earlier orders. All India Judicial Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 130
Judicial Officers' Pay - Remuneration for Special Judicial Magistrates - The Court clarified that Special Judicial Magistrates are entitled to a minimum remuneration of Rs. 45,000/- per month, along with a conveyance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month, effective from 01.04.2019. The Court directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to pay arrears to these magistrates within three months. All India Judicial Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 130
Judicial Officers' Pay - Risk Allowance and Higher Qualification Allowance - The Court addressed issues related to the admissibility of risk allowance for judicial officers and clarified that judicial officers are entitled to higher qualification allowances at every Assured Career Progression (ACP) stage, rejecting the argument that such allowances would lead to unjust enrichment. All India Judicial Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 130
Judicial Proceedings - Held, statements and questions posed in judicial proceedings, even if uncomfortable to the parties, cannot be construed as public humiliation or defamation. Such inquiries are inherent to the court's duty to ascertain the truth and cannot form the basis for collateral challenges absent malice or extraneous motives. Petitioner No. 1, whose habeas corpus petition was dismissed upon her voluntary return home, sought clarification from police regarding their in-court assertion that she had divorced her husband and remarried. The High Court initially entertained the application but later dismissed it as infructuous, rejecting subsequent review petitions. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner claimed open-court humiliation and defamation. The Court dismissed the petition, observing that during court proceedings, many statements are made and questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable, but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued as humiliating a person. After all, it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some. The grievance was deemed "totally misconceived," emphasizing that judicial discourse in pursuit of truth does not equate to actionable harm. Dhanlaxmi @ Sunita Mathuria v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : 2025 INSC 196
Judicial Review - Contractual Matters – Scope of - Public-private partnerships - Conduct of Formula 4 racing - The High Court had permitted the event subject to several conditions, including financial obligations imposed on the private organizer (RPPL). The Supreme Court partly allowed RPPL's appeal, setting aside directions from the High Court. These directions constituted an impermissible interference with the contractual terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between RPPL and the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu (SDAT). The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters involving the State and private entities, particularly in public-private partnerships. It also recognized the State's policy decision to promote motorsports and the benefits of public-private partnerships. The court upheld the High Court's directions regarding public safety and noise control measures. (Para 23) Racing Promotions v. Dr. Harish, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 270 : 2025 INSC 252
Judicial Service Rules, 2023 (Telangana) - Rule 5 (5.1)(a) - Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Telangana Judicial Rule, which mandates that a candidate aspiring for a District Judge appointment must have practised for at least 7 years in the Courts in Telangana - Rule 5(5.1)(a) mandates that candidates for direct recruitment as District Judges must have practiced as Advocates in High Court or Courts under control for not less than 7 years as on the date of notification - Held that 2023 Rules were validly enacted with retrospective effect, the High Court referred exclusively to the Telangana High Court and not others and Petitioners did not meet the 7 year advocate practice requirement - Directed the High Court to declare results and appoint candidates who qualified the examination but did not meet the eligibility criteria as a special case, without monetary benefits or seniority arrears, strictly limited to the facts of the case. [Paras 8-12] Usha Kiran Kshatri v. State of Telangana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 957 : 2025 INSC 1169
Judicial Vacancies - Expediting long-pending cases in the Allahabad High Court - The Supreme Court expressed deep concern over the numerous writ petitions seeking expeditious disposal of cases pending for over three decades in the Allahabad High Court. In this particular case, a 95-year-old litigant sought urgent hearing of her Second Appeal pending since 2013. The Court acknowledged the heavy caseload on each judge of the Allahabad High Court (approximately 15,000 to 20,000 cases per judge). The Court noted the significant vacancy in the High Court, with only 84 judges working against a sanctioned strength of 160. The Court emphasized the urgent need to fill judicial vacancies based on merit and ability to alleviate the backlog. The writ petition was treated as a representation to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, directing the Registry to forward a copy of the petition and the order. The Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court was requested to examine the matter and take appropriate administrative action. The writ petition was disposed of. (Para 1 – 10) Kamla Bai v High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 152
Lower Court - Referring to any court as a "Lower Court" or its records as "Lower Court Record" (LCR) is contrary to the ethos of the Constitution. The Supreme Court directed that Trial Court records be referred to as "Trial Court Record" (TCR), reiterating its order dated 8 February 2024 and the subsequent Registry circular dated 28 February 2024. (Para 25) Sakhawat v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 626 : 2025 INSC 777
Persons with Disabilities - Reasonable Accommodation - Equal Opportunity - No person can be denied consideration for recruitment in the judicial service solely on account of their physical disabilities. (Para 67) In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services v. Registrar General the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274 : 2025 INSC 300
Perverse bail order - Supreme Court directed that two judicial officers in the Delhi Judicial Service must undergo special judicial training for a period of at least 7 days for the illegal and erroneous manner in which they granted bail to two accused- Directed Chief Justice of Delhi High Court has been requested to make arrangements, with a focus on sensitising judicial officers on how to conduct proceedings and the deference to be accorded to superior court rulings- Supreme Court referred judicial officers' approach as 'untenable' and bordering on 'perversity'- Noted that accused had misled High Court while enjoying four years of interim protection and later concealed the rejection of their anticipatory bail applications while seeking regular bail- Supreme Court expressed disappointment on having formally surrendered before the Court, the accused were permitted to leave the Court without any formal order of release- Criticized the Delhi High Court for overlooking the factual position and declining interference- Appeal allowed. [Paras 16-33, 40-42] Netisty Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 962 : 2025 INSC 1181
Practical experience is critical for judicial officers handling issues of life, liberty, property, and reputation. Most High Courts, except Rajasthan and Sikkim, and States, except Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Nagaland, and Tripura, supported reintroducing the practice requirement. Concerns raised about superficial practice by aspirants signing vakalaths without effective experience. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2025 INSC 735
Promotion to the post of District Judge – Merit-cum-Seniority – Suitability Test – Seniority - Held, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal challenging the denial of promotion to the appellants, who were judicial officers in Jharkhand, despite qualifying the suitability test for promotion to the post of District Judge in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The appellants were denied promotion on the basis of a merit list, although they had secured more than the requisite minimum marks for suitability. The Court relied on the judgment in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 387, holding that under the 65% quota for promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, once a candidate qualifies the suitability test, promotions cannot be denied solely on the basis of a comparative merit list. The suitability of each candidate should be assessed individually, and a comparative assessment is not warranted unless explicitly provided by the applicable rules. Under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment, and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001, promotions under the 65% merit-cum-seniority quota should be based on suitability, not comparative merit. Once candidates qualify the suitability test, they are entitled to promotion without a comparative merit list ranking. The appellants were granted notional promotion from the date on which other officers from the same selection list were promoted (i.e., as per the notification dated 30.05.2019). They were also entitled to all consequential service benefits, including seniority, increments, and notional pay fixation, but without any back wages. Appeal Allowed. Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. Honble High Court of Jharkhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 71
Recruitment for Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Practice Requirement - The Supreme Court restored the 3-year practice requirement for candidates applying for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, clarifying that experience gained as law clerks with judges or judicial officers will count towards fulfilling this requirement. The Court emphasized that allowing fresh law graduates without practical experience into judicial service has proven problematic, as they lack firsthand exposure to court proceedings and the administration of justice, which is essential for judicial roles. The 3-year practice condition will not apply to recruitment processes notified before the judgment but will be mandatory for future recruitments. The Court underscored the necessity of practical experience to equip candidates with the skills to handle issues of life, liberty, property, and reputation of litigants effectively. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2025 INSC 735
Recruitment of Fresh Law Graduates as Judicial Officers – Minimum 3-Year Practice Requirement Restored – Held, Appointment of fresh law graduates without prior Bar experience problematic; bookish knowledge and pre-service training insufficient for judicial role; practical exposure to courtroom dynamics essential; 3-year practice mandate applies to future recruitments; law clerk experience counts towards practice period. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2025 INSC 735
Recruitment - Supreme Court Held that High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of review jurisdiction by reopening settled issues regarding cut-off marks and eligibility- Re-computation of cut-off marks and conducting a fresh main examination for candidates scoring below the original cut-off was impermissible exercise of review jurisdiction - Preliminary exam cut-off marks are sacrosanct once declared, and candidates failing to meet them cannot be considered in main examination - Conduct of second main exam for physically impaired candidates was a distinct case and could not justify a third main exam - Affidavit by High Court Registrar confirmed no ineligible candidate would be considered for appointment, allaying apprehension of respondents. [Para 9, 11-14] High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Jyotsna Dohalia, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 936 : 2025 INSC 1137
Recruitment - Under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1994 (as amended), the eligibility criteria for the Civil Judge Entry Level post were revised by an amendment to Rule 7 on 23/06/2023 - The amendment stipulated that only advocates who have been practising continuously for at least three years, or those who have secured the specified minimum marks in their first attempt without any ATKT (Allowed To Keep Terms), are eligible to apply - The validity of these restrictions was challenged but ultimately upheld - A recruitment advertisement dated 17/11/2023 was issued for 199 posts - Following the preliminary examination, results were declared based on cut-off marks, and candidates who scored below the cut-off were not permitted to appear for the main examination - A review petition was allowed by the High Court, which directed a re-computation of the cut-off marks and a fresh main examination for eligible candidates who had previously scored below the earlier cut-off - This order was appealed by the High Court Registrar. High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Jyotsna Dohalia, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 936 : 2025 INSC 1137
Recusal - Held, recusal is a matter of judicial discretion and Article 142 cannot be invoked to frame such guidelines. Chandraprabha v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 648
Representation of Women in Judiciary - Importance of Diversity - Held, the Supreme Court emphasized that increased female representation in the judiciary enhances judicial responsiveness to diverse social contexts, challenges gender stereotypes, and promotes equality in decision-making. The dismissal of the appellant, a female judicial officer from the Scheduled Tribe category, for non-disclosure of prior employment was deemed unwarranted, and her reinstatement was ordered. The Court highlighted three key aspects: (i) entry of women into the judiciary, (ii) retention and professional growth of women, and (iii) advancement to senior judicial roles. Greater representation of women shifts gender stereotypes, enhances visibility, and encourages access to justice. The Court recognized the appellant's perseverance and potential to contribute to a competent, diverse, and inclusive judiciary. (Para 29, 31) Pinky Meena v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 610 : 2025 INSC 756 : AIR 2025 SC 3013
Retired High Court Judges – Medical Reimbursement – Supreme Court clarifies that medical reimbursement for retired High Court Judges, their spouses, and dependants shall be borne by the State Government of either the Judge's first appointment or the State where the High Court from which the Judge retired is situated, addressing cases involving judicial transfers. Non-compliance with court orders on medical facilities, including cashless treatment, reimbursement for private hospital treatment without prior approval, and uniformity in benefits, may lead to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981. States directed to file fresh affidavits, with matter listed for April 29, 2025. Justice V.S. Dave v. Kusumjit Sidhu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 470
Termination of Judicial Officer - Alleged Concealment of Prior Employment and Academic Impropriety - Violation of Natural Justice - Constitutional Rights under Articles 14 and 16 - Held, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of a former Civil Judge and judicial magistrate, setting aside the High Court's Full Court decision to terminate her service in 2020. The termination, based on non-disclosure of prior government employment and simultaneous pursuit of academic degrees, was held to be a disproportionate penalty for a minor omission. The appellant's explanation—that she resigned from her teaching position before joining the judiciary and discontinued her B.Ed. upon learning of university regulations—was found reasonable. The dismissal process violated natural justice principles due to the lack of an opportunity to be heard. While probationers lack an absolute right to a post, arbitrary or discriminatory termination without adherence to natural justice violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court ordered reinstatement with notional pay fixation, treating the appellant as a confirmed employee who completed probation, but without backwages. (Para 23, 26, 32) Pinky Meena v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 610 : 2025 INSC 756 : AIR 2025 SC 3013
Termination of Judicial Officers - Adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) - Punitive Action - Natural Justice - Misconduct Allegations - Termination of judicial officers based on adverse ACRs without timely communication, opportunity to explain, or expungement of adverse remarks is arbitrary and illegal. "Poor performance" claims must be substantiated by clear and consistent evidence; contradictory or unsubstantiated claims in ACRs are insufficient grounds for termination. "Other material" used as a basis for termination, such as pending or concluded complaints, necessitates a fair opportunity to be heard, especially when such complaints form the foundation of termination, in adherence to Article 311 of the Constitution and relevant Conduct Rules. Termination based on misconduct allegations and "inefficiency," even if complaints were closed or resulted in advisories, is punitive and stigmatic, rendering it illegal if done without due process. Termination orders based on such flawed procedures are liable to be set aside, as they violate established principles of law and natural justice. (Para 16) Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 261 : 2025 INSC 289 : (2025) 9 SCC 297
The Court examined the pension entitlements of retired High Court judges, addressing disparities arising from date of appointment, source of entry (judicial service vs. Bar), and status as permanent or additional judges. Relying on the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (HCJ Act), and precedents including M.L. Jain v. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 355, P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India (2014) 12 SCC 1, and Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Union of India 2024 INSC 862, the Court declared a uniform "one rank one pension" norm for this constitutional office. Issues: 1. Whether pension calculations must reckon full judicial service, using last pay as a High Court judge. 2. Validity of pension ceilings under the HCJ Act and Article 14 discrimination. 3. Parity in post-retiral benefits between permanent/additional judges and those elevated from judicial service/Bar. 4. Impact of service breaks or New Pension Scheme (NPS) on entitlements. Holdings and Principles Laid Down: The Court summarized the following binding principles: (i) Entire service as a judge is reckoned for pension, based on last pay drawn as a High Court judge (not hypothetical District Judge pay). [M.L. Jain (1985) 2 SCC 355]. (ii) Pension ceiling under clause (b), Paragraph 2, Part III, First Schedule to HCJ Act violates Article 14; effaced since 1 January 1996 per M.L. Jain (II) (1991) 1 SCC 644. Pension follows proviso ceiling therein. (iii) No discrimination in pension fixation for constitutional office holders; uniform pay, allowances, and perks extend to pensions regardless of elevation source. [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (2014) 12 SCC 1]. (iv) Judicial officers' and Bar members' pre-elevation experience counts equally toward pension. [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra); Jagdish Chandra Gupta 2024 INSC 862]. (v) Classification by elevation source (Bar vs. service) lacks rational nexus and is unreasonable. [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra)]. (vi) "One rank one pension" is the norm for constitutional offices. [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra)]. (vii) No discrimination in family pension payments. [P. Ramakrishnam Raju (supra)]. (viii) Service breaks (e.g., between District Judge retirement and High Court elevation) do not deny pension based on High Court salary. [Union of India v. Justice (Retd.) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain)]. (ix) High Court judges elevated post-NPS are entitled to GPF benefits under HCJ Act. [Justice Shailendra Singh v. Union of India]. Significance: This judgment ensures parity and non-discrimination in judicial pensions, reinforcing constitutional uniformity for High Court judges' post-retiral benefits. In Re Refixation of Pension Considering Service Period in District Judiciary and High Court, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2025 INSC 726
Violation of Statutory Eligibility - A single judge's finding of ineligibility based on objective assessment of documents and organizational hierarchy binds unless demonstrably erroneous. A division bench's reversal, premised on restricted interference in service matters without probing statutory violations, constitutes error. Where selection files reveal absence of supporting evidence for claimed experience and affirmative proof of shortfall (e.g., only ~4 years in qualifying roles), the appointment is quashed ab initio. Appointee directed to vacate office forthwith (within one week, sans policy/financial decisions); benefits accrued till date preserved, but future entitlements limited to verified tenure. Fresh selection process mandated expeditiously. Dr. Amaragouda L v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 197 : 2025 INSC 201
Visually impaired candidates are eligible for judicial service, and Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, was struck down to the extent it excluded them. Rule 7 prescribing additional requirements for PwDs (such as three years of practice or securing 70% marks in the first attempt), was partially struck down as violative of equality and reasonable accommodation. Separate cut-offs must be maintained for visually impaired candidates, in line with the Indra Sawhney judgment. (Para 68) In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services v. Registrar General the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274 : 2025 INSC 300
Women in Judiciary - Gender Equality - Judicial Decision-Making - Maternity Rights - Indirect Discrimination - Reinstatement of Terminated Judicial Officers - Increased representation of women in the judiciary is essential for enhancing judicial decision-making, particularly in cases affecting women, and for promoting broader gender equality by challenging stereotypes and encouraging women's participation in other decision-making roles. International covenants, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and CEDAW, mandate protection of maternity rights and equal employment opportunities for women, including freedom from discrimination during pregnancy and maternity. Miscarriage has profound physical and psychological consequences for women, requiring sensitive consideration in the workplace. Courts must address and rectify indirect discrimination, which often masks underlying patriarchal systems, to ensure equal opportunity and gender equality in public employment. A holistic approach to evaluating judicial officers, especially women, necessitates considering their medical and emotional circumstances, including the impact of pregnancy and miscarriage, and not solely relying on performance metrics like pendency and disposal. Termination orders of judicial officers were set aside, and they were reinstated with consequential benefits, emphasizing the need for a sensitive work environment and guidance for women in the judiciary. (Para 17 & 18) Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 261 : 2025 INSC 289 : (2025) 9 SCC 297