Author: Charvi Tank

Case name: All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors (2025)

Citation:  2025 SCC OnLine SC 2575

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges\Benches: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Bench Type: Division Bench (2 Judges Bench)

Date Of Judgement: November 27,2025

Parties Involved

Petitioner(s)

All India Judges Association & Others

The petitioner is an association of judicial officers in India. The petitioner has been engaged in litigations over some time now, pressing for changes in the service conditions, recruitment, and eligibility of the members of the subordinate judicial services.

Respondent

Union of India & Others

The respondents before the Court are Union of India, the various State Governments of India, the Union Territories of India, and High Courts that are charged with recruitment and the administration of judicial services.

Facts of the Case

The instant case is a follow-up and clarification case that originated from the judgment given by the Supreme Court on 20 May 2025, whereby the Court called for and enforced as mandatory a three-year practice period as an advocate as a necessary requirement for a candidate to qualify as a Civil Judge (Junior Division).

In the case at hand, the applicant in the interim application had been provisionally enrolled as an advocate on 28th July 2018. At the time of the applicant’s enrolment as well as her application for the judicial service, there was no requirement of the applicant having any prior practice in the legal arena. The applicant had applied for various State Judicial Services Exams and was finally appointed as the Civil Judge (Entry Level) in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services in November 2019.

After working as a judicial officer for close to six years, the applicant continued to seek judicial service employment in other states. But with the setting of the three-year Bar practice rule by the Supreme Court’s judgment of May 2025, she questioned the applicability of this rule to those like her with judicial service appointments before the judgment’s efficacy. Thus, she submitted an appeal requesting exemption and interpretation on this issue.

Issues Raised Before the Court

1. Whether the mandatory requirement of three years’ practice at the Bar, as provided under judgment dated 20 May 2025, is to apply retrospectively to judicial officers prior to the aforesaid judgment.

2. Whether the judicial officers already in service can be disqualified for appointments in other states because of the newly introduced eligibility criterion.

3. Whether enforcing the practice requirement in such cases would amount to violative of norms of justice and non-retroactivity.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant’s Arguments

1. The candidate submitted that there was no statutory or judicial requirement of Bar practice at the time of her enrolment and appointment.
2.  It is argued that retroactive application of the judgment of 2025 would be arbitrary and unjustified, especially when the officers already possess significant judicial experience.
3. The applicant argued that the six years of judicial experience are to be rated comparable to, if not better than, his experience as a barrister.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The parties relied on the judgment in 20 May 2025, arguing that the provision to be in practice for three years was brought in to improve the quality of the judges.
2. It was discussed that uniformity in the dispensation of eligibility criteria is critical in ensuring consistency in judicial standards among States.

Judgment / Final Decision

The Supreme Court approved the application and made it clear that the three-year Bar practice requirement would not be applicable to judges who were appointed before the date of 20th May 2025. 

The Court held that, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant has already served as a judicial officer for six years, enforcing the new requirement of eligibility would amount to being grossly unjust. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court clarified that judicial officers appointed before 20 May 2025 shall be exempted from the requirement to practice law in the case of an application for judicial services in other States, if they have served for three years in the present State.

The Court also permitted the recall of the earlier order issued on the 14th of August 2025 and directed the States, Union Territories, and the High Courts to submit their responses regarding the regularization of the e-Court technical staff.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

The Supreme Court reasoned that judicial decisions altering eligibility conditions should ordinarily operate prospectively, especially when retrospective application would cause hardship to individuals who acted in accordance with the law as it stood earlier.

The Court emphasized that judicial experience gained on the Bench cannot be disregarded, and imposing a Bar practice requirement on already appointed judicial officers would be unreasonable. The judgment reaffirmed principles of administrative fairness, legal certainty, and non-retrospective application of eligibility norms.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment serves as an important clarification ensuring that the May 2025 ruling on mandatory Bar practice does not adversely affect serving judicial officers. It strikes a balance between improving judicial standards and protecting the legitimate expectations of officers appointed under earlier recruitment frameworks.

The decision reinforces the principle that reforms in judicial administration must be implemented without causing injustice to those already in service.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, through this clarification in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), ensured that the mandatory three-year Bar practice requirement operates prospectively. The judgment safeguards judicial officers from retrospective disqualification and upholds constitutional values of fairness, equality, and reasonableness in public employment.

This case forms a crucial continuation of the All India Judges Association jurisprudence and will guide future recruitment and service conditions in the Indian judiciary.