No Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Seniority In Higher Judicial ServiceThe Supreme Court ruled out any special quota/weightage for promotee judges in the posts of District Judges, observing that there is no nationwide pattern of disproportionate representation of direct recruits in the Higher Judicial Service.The Court observed that...
No Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Seniority In Higher Judicial Service
The Supreme Court ruled out any special quota/weightage for promotee judges in the posts of District Judges, observing that there is no nationwide pattern of disproportionate representation of direct recruits in the Higher Judicial Service.
The Court observed that a perceived feeling of "heartburn" among judicial officers cannot justify the creation of any artificial classification within the cadre Higher Judicial Service(HJS). On the entry into a common cadre from different sources (Regular Promotion, Limited Departmental Competitive Exam and Direct Recruitment) and assignment of seniority as per the annual roster, the incumbents lose their 'birthmark' of the source from which they are recruited.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA| Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1119
Supreme Court Mandates Minimum Practice Of 3 Years As Advocate To Enter Judicial Service
In an important judgment relevant to several judiciary aspirants, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 20) restored the condition that a minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service.
The period of practice could be reckoned from the date of provisional enrollment. The said condition will, however, not apply to recruitment process already initiated by the High Courts before the date of the judgment . In other words, this condition will apply only to future recruitments.
All India Judges Association vs Union of India (Minimum Practice & LDCE issue) | Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601
Supreme Court Issues Directions For Regularisation Of Court Managers, Directs High Courts To Frame Rules On Their Recruitment
The Supreme Court expressed concerns at the fact that Court Managers in many states are working on a contractual basis and that some states have even discontinued their services, citing a shortage of funds.
Deploring this situation, the Court directed that all States should regularise the existing Court Managers, subject to their passing the suitability test. The regularisation shall be with effect from the beginning of their services. However, they will not be entitled to salary arrears.
All India Judges Association vs Union of India| Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 582
Supreme Court Increases LDCE Quota For Promotion Of Civil Judges, Reduces Qualifying Service
The Supreme Court directed that the quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion as District Judges from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) be increased from 10% to 25%.
The Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend their service rules to this effect.
Also, the minimum qualifying service period required for a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to appear in the LDCE is reduced to three years. Furthermore, the Court directed that 10% posts in Civil Judge (Senior Division) be reserved for accelarated promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) upon completing three years of qualifying service through LDCE.
All India Judges Association vs Union of India (Minimum Practice & LDCE issue)| Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601
Allowing Fresh Law Graduates To Join Judicial Service Led To Problems; Bookish Knowledge Not Enough : Supreme Court
While restoring the 3-year minimum practice requirement to apply for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the appointment of fresh law graduates as judicial officers without any prior experience at the Bar, terming the practice unsuccessful and problematic over the past two decades.
The Court emphasized that judicial officers are entrusted with matters involving life, liberty, property, and reputation from the very first day of their tenure. In such a scenario, theoretical knowledge acquired through law books or pre-service training is insufficient to meet the complex demands of the role.
Experience As Law Clerks Of Judges Will Count Towards Practice Requirement For Judicial Service Entry : Supreme Court
While restoring the 3-year practice condition to apply for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, the Supreme Court clarified that experience as law clerks of Judges will be counted towards the said 3-year practice.
While restoring the 3-year practice condition to apply for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, the Supreme Court clarified that experience as law clerks of Judges will be counted towards the said 3-year practice.
Minimum Practice Condition Won't Apply To Judiciary Recruitment Process Already Notified By High Courts : Supreme Court
While restoring the 3-year minimum practice condition to enter judicial service, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 20) clarified that this condition will not apply to the recruitment process already notified by the States/High Courts before the judgment. In other words, the minimum practice condition will apply only to future recruitment process.
"Minimum practice requirement shall not be applicable where the High Courts have already commenced the appointment process of Civil Judges Junior Division before the date of this judgment, and this shall be applicable only when the next appointment process begins," Chief Justice of India BR Gavai pronounced.
The Supreme Court held that a break in practice cannot be ignored while considering the mandate of 7-year practice as an advocate, prescribed under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, for direct appointment as a District Judge. The Court clarified that 7-year practice must be "continuous" as on the date of application.
The observation was made by a 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran.
REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020] | Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
Advocates Cannot Claim Exclusive Quota In District Judge Direct Recruitment : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that the 25% quota set for direct recruitment for the post of district judges is not exclusively for the candidates from the bar.
The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran held that :
"We are also not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that 25% quota of direct recruitment is reserved only for practising advocates. We are of the view that if the contention in this respect is accepted, it will amount to providing a “quota” for the advocates having seven years' practice. A plain and literal reading of Article 233(2) does not contemplate such a situation. Therefore, the contention as canvassed in that regard does not hold water."
REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020]| Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that a judicial officer, who has a combined experience of seven years as a judicial officer and an advocate, is eligible to apply for direct appointment as a District Judge. The eligibility will be seen as on the date of the application.
To ensure a level playing field, the Court held that the minimum age of the in-service candidates applying for District Judges' direct recruitment must be 35 years.
REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020]| Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that in-service judicial officers can apply for direct recruitment as District Judges if they have a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and/or in service. The Court also observed that the experience gained by a judicial officer is greater than that of a practising advocate.
The judgment authored by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai for the 5-judge Constitution Bench observed, "the experience the judicial officers gain while working as judges is much greater than the one, a person gains while working as an advocate."
"Apart from that, before commencing their work as judicial officers, the judges are also required to undergo rigorous training of at least one year," the judgment added.
REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020]| Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
District Judges' Retirement Age Can Be Enhanced To 61 Years : Supreme Court To Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Supreme Court clarified that there was no impediment in raising the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years and asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take an administrative decision on enhancing the retirement age within 3 months.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing the petition by the Madhya Pradesh Judges Association seeking enhancement of the retirement age of district judges in Madhya Pradesh to 62 years.
MADHYA PRADESH JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH| W.P.(C) No. 000819 - / 2018 | Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 664
Supreme Court Allows Members Of MP Judges Association To Continue In Service Till 61 Years
The Supreme Court on Thursday, as an interim relief, allowed the members of the MP Judges Association to continue their service as district judges till they reach the age of 61 years, as opposed to the earlier superannuation age of 60 years.
The bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and PB Varale was hearing the challenge to the administrative order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which refused to increase the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years. The Petition has been filed by the MP Judges Association.
MADHYA PRADESH JUDGES ASSOCIATION Versus THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.| W.P.(C) No. 000986 / 2025
Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Two Lady Judicial Officers In MP, Calls For Sensitivity Towards Women's Difficulties
The Supreme Court set aside the termination of services of two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, after finding it to be "punitive, arbitrary and illegal."
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh directed the reinstatement of the two officers within a period of fifteen days in accordance with their seniority they possessed. The Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government and the Madhya Pradesh High Court to declare the probation of the two officers as on the date their juniors were confirmed (13.05.2023). Monetary benefits of the period of termination shall be calculated notionally for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
ADITI KUMAR SHARMA v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024 & SARITA CHOUDHARY v. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 142/2024 & IN RE: TERMINATION OF CIVIL JUDGE, CLASS-II (JR. DIVISION) MADHYA PRADESH STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE., SMW(C) No. 2/2023| Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 261
'Disability No Bar To Excellence In Legal Profession' : Supreme Court Mentions Examples Of Legal Luminaries With Disabilities
In a judgment of great significance for the rights of persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court quashed a rule of the Madhya Pradesh judicial services which disallowed visually impaired and low-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services.
"Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be 'not suitable' for judicial service and they are eligible to participate in selection for posts in judicial service," the Court held.
IN RE RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH.,SMW(C) No. 2/2024
'None Should Be Excluded From Judicial Service Only Because Of Disability' : Supreme Court Quashes MP Rule Barring Blind Candidates\
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that no person can be denied consideration for recruitment in the judicial service solely on account of their physical disabilities.
The Court held that persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service recruitments and that the State must provide them with affirmative action to ensure an inclusive framework. "Any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of Person with Disabilitiess, whether through cutoff or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality," the Court pronounced.
IN RE RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES v THE REGISTRAR GENERAL THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH.,SMW(C) No. 2/2024| Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274