Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Judiciary

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...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Judiciary

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags