The Supreme Court has issued a significant clarification regarding the eligibility of serving judicial officers to apply for recruitment in the Judicial Services of other states. The Bench held that the mandatory requirement of three years of practice at the Bar, as stipulated in a previous judgment, does not apply to judicial officers appointed prior to May 20, 2025.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022/1989).
Brief Summary
The Supreme Court addressed an application seeking exemption from the mandatory condition of three years of practice as an advocate for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division. The Court ruled that judicial officers appointed before the judgment dated May 20, 2025, are exempt from this requirement if they wish to apply for judicial services in other states, provided they have completed three years of service in their current state. Additionally, the Court issued directions regarding the absorption of e-Court Technical Staff.
Background of the Dispute
The instant application (I.A. Nos. 278517 & 278518 of 2025) was filed by a judicial officer seeking exemption from the directions passed by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated May 20, 2025. Paragraph 89 (ii), (vii), and (viii) of the said judgment had mandated three years of experience as an advocate for applying to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division.
The applicant presented a “peculiar” factual matrix:
- She was provisionally enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi on July 28, 2018.
- At that time, there was no requirement for prior practice at the Bar.
- She applied for and was selected in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services, being appointed as a Civil Judge, Entry Level on November 19, 2019.
- She has been serving as a Judicial Officer for six years.
- However, she wished to apply for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division in other states but faced disqualification under the new norms because she had not completed three years of practice at the Bar before joining the judiciary.
Arguments and Observations
The primary legal hurdle for the applicant was the retrospective application of the qualification criteria laid down in the May 2025 judgment. Since she had joined the service immediately after her enrollment, she could not technically fulfill the “three years’ practice as an advocate” criterion, despite having superior experience as a sitting judge.
The Court observed that the application was “occasioned on account of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 20.05.2025… since vide the said judgment for applying to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division, three years’ experience as an advocate has been made mandatory.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Bench acknowledged the validity of the applicant’s experience. The Court noted, “We find that since the applicant has already worked as a Judicial Officer for a period of six years, the said condition would not be applicable to her.”
Recognizing that this issue might affect other similarly placed judicial officers, the Court went beyond the individual applicant to issue a general clarification.
Key Directions:
- Exemption from Practice: The Court clarified that judicial officers appointed prior to the passing of the judgment dated May 20, 2025, are not required to hold three years of practice at the Bar.
- Condition for Exemption: This exemption applies when such officers apply for Judicial Services in any other State.
- Service Requirement: The Court added a proviso, stating: “This is, however, subject to them completing three years’ service in their present State.”
The Court allowed I.A. No. 278517 of 2025 in these terms.
Other Directions in the Order
Regularization of e-Court Technical Staff (I.A. No. 184071/2025): The Court also heard arguments regarding the absorption and regularization of e-Court Technical Staff working in various High Courts and Trial Courts.
- Arguments: Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the applicant, submitted that 14 High Courts have already absorbed or regularized such staff. He prayed for the disposal of the application in terms of the judgment dated May 16, 2025 (2025 SCC Online SC 1146).
- Directions: The Court directed all States, Union Territories, and High Courts that have not yet filed their responses to file affidavits within six weeks. The Registrar has been directed to communicate the order to the Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all States/UTs and Registrar Generals of High Courts.
Recall Application: I.A. No. 286093 of 2025, seeking the recall of an order dated August 14, 2025, was allowed by the Court.
The matter regarding e-Court staff is listed for further directions after eight weeks.
