Supreme Court Restructures Judicial Appointments | LDCE Quota Restored To 25% | Three Years’ Bar Practice Mandatory For Entry-Level Judges
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Three Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has issued binding directions regarding the method of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service. The Court directed that appointments to the cadre of District Judges shall henceforth be conducted in a tripartite manner: 50% through promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, 25% through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) based on merit, and 25% through direct recruitment from eligible advocates. The Bench further mandated the framing and amendment of recruitment rules by all High Courts in accordance with the new framework. These directions are to be implemented by the respective High Courts and State Governments within a stipulated time period, ensuring uniformity and merit-based elevation within the judiciary
The matter concerned a series of interlocutory applications filed in a writ petition originally instituted to examine the terms of service and structural reforms within the Indian judiciary. The applications raised several issues regarding eligibility, promotion, and selection criteria for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and promotion to the cadre of District Judges under the Higher Judicial Service.
Multiple applications were filed spanning the years 2019 to 2022. These included I.A. No. 93974 of 2019, I.A. Nos. 72900, 73015, and 40695 of 2021, as well as I.A. Nos. 50269 and 201893 of 2022. The petitioners in the applications primarily sought clarifications, modifications, and restoration of earlier quotas concerning the LDCE for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. Specific reliefs included restoring the LDCE quota to 25%, modifying earlier judicial directions, and introducing suitability tests for promotions.
I.A. No. 93974 of 2019, for instance, sought clarification on whether the LDCE quota in the State of West Bengal should be calculated based on the cadre strength or annual vacancies. Alternatively, it requested the restoration of the LDCE quota to 25% and permission to the High Court at Calcutta to fill vacancies through merit-based LDCE, ensuring that the channel remained effective in the State.
Other applications, including I.A. Nos. 72900 and 40695 of 2021, and I.A. No. 50269 of 2022, requested directions for introducing an objective suitability test and increasing the quota for accelerated promotion through competitive examinations. I.A. No. 73015 of 2021 sought a modification of the order dated April 20, 2010, specifically requesting that the 10% LDCE quota be increased to 25% and that ongoing regular promotion processes be stayed until a suitability test was conducted.
I.A. No. 201893 of 2022 further sought amendments to eligibility conditions under LDCE across all States and Union Territories, advocating full utilization of the LDCE quota and restoration of its original 25% share.
The Court acknowledged that the original scheme for judicial promotions was laid out in its judgment dated March 21, 2002, which itself had considered the recommendations of the Shetty Commission. At that time, the recruitment process to the District Judge cadre was structured as follows: 50% promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, 25% by promotion through LDCE, and 25% by direct recruitment from eligible advocates.
However, the Court noted that difficulties in filling up the LDCE quota had led to an amendment in 2010 through another judgment, where the LDCE quota was reduced from 25% to 10%, citing large-scale vacancies due to a shortage of eligible candidates. The revised structure post-2010 stood at 65% regular promotion, 10% LDCE, and 25% direct recruitment.
Over time, stakeholders including various High Courts and State Governments submitted affidavits responding to directions issued by the Court on April 25, 2023. These affidavits addressed the Court’s queries on a range of issues including eligibility criteria for LDCE, required years of experience for candidates, and mechanisms to enhance merit-based promotions.
The High Courts of Chhattisgarh, Patna, Kerala, Manipur, Madras, and Uttarakhand supported restoring the LDCE quota to 25%, while others like the High Courts of Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan preferred retaining the status quo. Many of those in favor of the restoration also suggested that if the LDCE seats remained unfilled, they should revert to regular promotions.
Another major issue pertained to the experience required for eligibility under LDCE. The original requirement was five years as Civil Judge (Senior Division). However, data presented revealed that in many States, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) often became eligible for regular promotion within five years, rendering the LDCE path ineffective. The Court’s attention was drawn to an earlier order passed on April 19, 2022, pertaining to the Delhi Judicial Service, wherein it allowed eligibility for LDCE after seven years of cumulative service — five as Junior Division and two as Senior Division — or ten years solely in the Junior Division.
Based on submissions from various States, including detailed timelines for career progression, the Court noted that the average time taken to reach eligibility for LDCE and for regular promotion was often similar, thus defeating the intended incentive of the LDCE route. This prompted further consideration for adjusting the eligibility criteria.
Further, a proposal was placed before the Court to introduce a merit-based promotion mechanism for moving from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division). Some High Courts advocated a 10% quota for such merit-based promotions to enhance motivation and efficiency among junior officers.
Another issue related to whether the quota for LDCE should be calculated based on the total cadre strength or annual vacancies. Most State Governments favored computation based on cadre strength to ensure consistency, with only a few supporting vacancy-based calculations.
Regarding suitability tests for promotions to the District Judge cadre under the 65% quota, the Court referred to its own precedent in the 2002 judgment which had called for an objective mechanism for evaluating candidates. While some States had already implemented suitability tests based on appraisal of Annual Confidential Reports, judgment quality, and other parameters, others had yet to establish formal rules.
Finally, the Court examined the previously abolished requirement of three years' legal practice for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Most High Courts supported restoring this condition, citing concerns over courtroom decorum, procedural handling, and professional maturity among freshly recruited law graduates without prior legal practice.
The High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Patna, Kerala, Madras, Uttarakhand, and others submitted affidavits supporting the three-year experience requirement. They cited issues such as lack of familiarity with court processes, difficulties in handling urgent matters, and behavioural issues. A few States, however, such as Tripura and Nagaland, opposed the reintroduction of this requirement. The Bar Council of India also submitted that experience should be calculated from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), while others proposed counting it from provisional enrolment.
Thank you. Below is the next section of the article.
The Court recorded that the primary question involved the structure and standards applicable to appointments and promotions in the judicial service, specifically the Higher Judicial Service. The Bench referred to its previous decisions and the recommendations of the Shetty Commission to examine the legality and practicality of existing rules and quotas.
On the issue of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota, the Court stated in reference to its 2002 decision:
“We are of the opinion that there should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion is concerned: 50 per cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority. For this purpose, the High Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of those candidates and to assess their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case-law. The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through the limited departmental competitive examination.”
Addressing the 2010 adjustment that reduced the LDCE quota from 25% to 10%, the Court recorded:
“We are of the considered view that suitable amendment is to be made for this 25% quota of limited departmental competitive examination. We are also of the view, with the past experience, that it is desirable that 25% quota be reduced to 10%.”
However, revisiting the same in the present judgment, the Court took into account the submissions from various High Courts which indicated that a sufficient pool of eligible candidates had now become available. It therefore stated:
“We find that if the quota of LDCE is restored to 25% as originally recommended in the Third AIJA Case, which was reduced to 10% in the Fourth AIJA Case, it will provide an incentive amongst the officers in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division).”
The Court emphasized that if adequate candidates were not available in any given year for LDCE selection, the remaining posts should be reverted to regular promotion. It recorded:
“If, in a particular year sufficient candidates are not selected from the LDCE quota, it will be appropriate that such posts would revert back to the regular promotion quota based on merit-cum-seniority, to be filled up in the same year.”
Regarding the required experience for LDCE eligibility, the Court evaluated comparative data across various States. It observed that the time taken by a Judicial Officer to qualify for LDCE was nearly equal to that taken for promotion under the regular quota. It noted:
“The comparative position would reveal that in most of the States, the average time taken by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to climb the ladder of regular promotion and ultimately, be promoted as a District Judge is almost the same as the time it takes to become eligible for a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to appear for LDCE.”
The Court stated that the intended incentive behind LDCE was being diluted: “As such, there will be no actual incentive for a Judicial Officer to appear for LDCE and such incentive cannot be frustrated by actual working of the said scheme.”
On the need for reform in promoting Civil Judges (Junior Division) to Civil Judges (Senior Division), the Court noted the absence of a merit-based mechanism and stated:
“We are of the view that a system wherein 10% of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) would be reserved for promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) through the LDCE mechanism needs to be introduced so as to provide incentive at an earlier promotion to the meritorious candidates.”
Addressing the formula for calculating reserved quota—whether by total cadre strength or annual vacancies—the Court recorded:
“Since most of the States are already filling up the vacant posts as per the total cadre strength, keeping uniformity in mind, we are of the view that the quota to be reserved for LDCE should be calculated on the basis of the cadre strength.”
Regarding suitability tests under the 65% regular promotion quota, the Court reaffirmed the need for objective standards. Citing the 2002 judgment, it stated:
“We are of the opinion that there has to be certain minimum standard, objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges.”
It detailed factors to be considered:
“It would be relevant to consider factors referred to by us in the preceding paragraphs amongst other factors: (i) Whether the candidate possesses updated knowledge of law; (ii) The quality of judgments rendered by the Judicial Officer; (iii) ACRs of the Judicial Officer of the preceding five years; (iv) Disposal rate in the preceding five years; (v) Performance of the Judicial Officer in the viva voce; and (vi) General perceptions and awareness as also communication skills.”
On reintroducing the requirement of legal practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division) candidates, the Court recorded its concern that fresh law graduates lacked adequate exposure:
“Judges from the very day on which they assume office have to deal with the questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of litigants. Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court-system.”
It noted that most High Courts supported the restoration of this condition. Summarizing the rationale, the Court recorded: “The experience of various High Courts has also shown that such fresh law graduates, upon their entry in judicial service, begin to show behavioural and temperament problems.”
The Court ultimately found merit in the recommendation that: “A minimum of three years’ experience at the Bar for appearing in the examination for Civil Judge (Junior Division) should be restored.”
It concluded that the experience should be counted from the date of provisional enrolment with the Bar Council.
The Supreme Court issued a series of directions applicable to all High Courts and State Governments concerning the recruitment and promotion framework for judicial officers at the entry and higher levels.
First, the Court directed that the method of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service be revised to restore the quota of promotion through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) from 10% to 25%. It held that the original structure prescribed in its 2002 judgment would now stand reinstated. The Court ordered:
“Recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be: (a) 50% by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test; (b) 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division); and (c) 25% of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates.”
Second, the Court modified the minimum qualifying service for eligibility to appear in the LDCE. It held that Judicial Officers who have completed a minimum of three years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall be eligible, provided they also possess a cumulative experience of at least seven years combining service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Senior Division. The Court stated:
“We are of the considered view that the minimum number of years of experience as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) for being eligible for LDCE should be reduced from 5 years to 3 years, with a total of at least 7 years of judicial service in both cadres.”
Third, the Court introduced a new merit-based mechanism for early promotion within the subordinate judiciary. It directed that:
“10% of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be reserved for Civil Judges (Junior Division) through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, with a minimum of 3 years' service in the Junior Division.”
Fourth, addressing the basis for quota calculation, the Court directed: “The quota for LDCE shall be calculated on the basis of cadre strength and not annual vacancies. This shall ensure consistency and uniformity across jurisdictions.”
Fifth, the Court mandated suitability tests for promotions under the 65% regular promotion quota. It ordered that States and High Courts which have not yet framed rules for such assessments shall do so. The evaluation must include factors such as legal knowledge, ACRs of the preceding five years, quality of judgments, disposal rates, viva voce performance, and general awareness.
On the issue of prior legal practice for Civil Judge (Junior Division) appointments, the Court restored the requirement of minimum three years of experience at the Bar. It held:
“All High Courts and State Governments are directed to amend their respective service rules to prescribe a minimum of three years' practice as an advocate as an eligibility condition for appearing in the examination for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).”
Finally, the Court resolved the question regarding the commencement date for counting practice experience. It held: “The minimum three years’ practice requirement shall be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment with the State Bar Council.”
These directives are to be implemented through necessary amendments to service rules by all High Courts and State Governments. “All the amendments in terms of the aforesaid directions shall be carried out by the High Courts within a period of three months from the date of this judgment and the concerned State Governments shall consider and approve the same within a further period of three months.”
In relation to ongoing recruitment processes, the Court directed: “All such recruitment processes which have been kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with the Rules which were applicable on the date of advertisement/notification.”
Finally the Court recorded its formal appreciation as follows:
“We place on record our deep gratitude for the assistance rendered by Shri Sidharth Bhatnagar, learned amicus curiae ably assisted by Mr. Ankit Yadav and Mr. Aditya Sidhra, learned counsel… We also place on record our appreciation for the Senior Counsel and counsel appearing on behalf of the various High Courts, State Governments and other stakeholders.”
Case Title: All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 735
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
