All India Judges Association v. Union of India, ( Issue No.2 )

-

 All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 735


Issue No.2

Whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the LDCE for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service should be reduced, and if so, by how many years.


Background

  • Originally, candidates needed 5 years’ experience as Civil Judge (Senior Division) to be eligible for LDCE.
  • In 2022, the Supreme Court (in the Fifth AIJA Case) modified this for Delhi Judicial Service:
    • Candidates could qualify with 7 years total service (5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) + 2 years as Senior Division), or
    • 10 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) alone.
  • This change was prompted by delays and lack of eligible candidates under the earlier rule.


Court’s Analysis

  • The Court reviewed responses from various High Courts and State Governments:
    • Opposed reduction: Gauhati, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Madras, Tripura, Calcutta, J&K and Ladakh.
    • Supported reduction: Patna (3 years), Kerala (3 years), Haryana (2–3 years).
  • Haryana noted that it takes 14 years on average for a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to become eligible under the current rule.
  • The Court acknowledged that the 5-year requirement as Senior Division was a bottleneck and undermined the purpose of LDCE, which is to incentivize merit-based accelerated promotion.


Conclusion on Issue No.2

  • The Supreme Court modified the eligibility criteria for LDCE across all jurisdictions:
    • Candidates may now qualify with 7 years total service (5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) + 2 years as Senior Division), or
    • 10 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) alone.
  • This change ensures a larger pool of eligible candidates, strengthens the LDCE channel, and aligns with the goal of promoting judicial officers based on merit.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Understanding Transfer Petitions Before the Supreme Court: Section 25 CPC and Article 139A of the Constitution

-
Understanding Transfer Petitions Before the Supreme Court: Section 25 CPC and Article 139A of the Constitution   In the complex landscape of Indian litigation, transfer petitions serve as a vital procedural tool to ensure justice, convenience, and judicial efficiency. Whether it’s a matrimonial dispute, a constitutional challenge, or a multi-jurisdictional commercial suit, the Supreme Court of India has the power to transfer cases across courts under various provisions. This blog unpacks the three principal legal routes for transfer petitions before the Supreme Court: Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Article 139A (1) of the Constitution of India Article 139A (2) of the Constitution of India We also clarify the court fee structure , which varies depending on whether the matter is matrimonial or not.     1. Transfer Petition Under Section 25 CPC Statutory Basis: Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Indi...
Read more

Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 486)

-
  Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 486) Date of Judgment: 15 April 2025 Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Krishnan V. Chandran Legal Question Does the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 prohibit the use of Urdu as an additional language on a Municipal Council building’s signboard? Case Background The Municipal Council of Patur , Akola district , displayed its name in both Marathi and Urdu. The appellant objected, arguing that only Marathi, being the official language of Maharashtra, could be used. The Collector initially upheld the objection, but the Divisional Commissioner reversed it. The appellant then approached the Bombay High Court , which declined to interfere. During the appeal, the 2022 Act came into force. The High Court re-heard the matter and ruled that the Act did not prohibit the use of Urdu. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court . Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court...
Read more

St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr Versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors.

-
St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr Versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. Number of judges: 2 Name of the judges: Aniruddha Bose and J.B.Pardiwala 1.        BRIEF FACTS: Sh. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava was the principal in a minority school whose services was terminated by the school management on ground of indiscipline. Sh. Rajendra Prasad preferred a writ petition before Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the termination order under Article 226 of Constitution. Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the petition with the contention that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 against a private institution. Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 485/2017 held a contrary view that writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matter reached to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where Hon’ble SCI held that as the school is not an ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Consti...
Read more