A fresh review petition has been filed in the historic All India Judges Association case. The petition questions the Supreme Court’s May 2025 order and requests an open court hearing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A new review petition was filed in the Supreme Court on 12th July 2025 in the old and famous case All India Judges Association vs. Union of India & Others, originally started in 1989. The petition challenges the recent Supreme Court decision given on 20th May 2025, and it asks for a detailed relook into the issues related to the working conditions, service benefits, and independence of the judiciary.
This fresh petition is filed under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to review its own judgments. The petitioner is also asking for the matter to be heard in an open court, not just in chambers.
What Does the Review Petition Seek
The present review petition challenges the Supreme Court’s final judgment dated 20.05.2025 in All India Judges Association & Others v. Union of India & Others [2025 INSC 735].
In the said judgment, a three-judge Bench mandated a minimum of three years’ legal practice for candidates appearing in Civil Judge (Junior Division) exams nationwide, with the decision reserved for five months.
The Court directed all States to amend recruitment rules, requiring certification of experience by an advocate with at least ten years of practice. It also stated that time spent as a law clerk would count toward this requirement, and new recruits must undergo one year of training. The rule, however, would apply prospectively and not affect ongoing recruitments.
This change, coming after nearly two decades, retroactively alters eligibility, adversely affecting candidates who had legitimate expectations under the previous criteria. The petitioner seeks a review, citing irreparable harm to such candidates, and asserts that no other similar petition has been filed before any court.
Questions of Law:
- Whether the Supreme Court mistake by reinstating the three-year Bar practice rule without considering the 14th, 116th, 117th, and 118th Law Commission Reports, thereby warranting review?
- Whether the Court failed to account for the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s (2022) recommendation for broader consultation and empirical study before implementing the three-year requirement?
- Whether the Court overlooked the adequacy of existing judicial training provided by State Judicial Academies as a viable substitute for courtroom experience, resulting in arbitrariness?
- Whether the absence of transparency and non-disclosure of conflicting responses from High Courts and State Governments violated principles of fairness and natural justice?
- Whether the Court failed to examine if the three-year practice requirement has a rational nexus with judicial competence, especially in the absence of supporting empirical data?
- Whether excluding equivalent legal experience (e.g., corporate counsel, academia, research) from the definition of “practice” is arbitrary and violates Article 14?
- Whether the rule disproportionately affects socioeconomically weaker sections, women, and first-generation law graduates, leading to indirect discrimination?
- Whether enforcing the rule without transitional measures violate the legitimate expectations of candidates who relied on the existing eligibility criteria?
- Whether the Court failed to consider viable alternatives like enhanced training, ethical evaluations, or international models, indicating a non-application of mind?
- Whether the Bar Council of India’s failure to provide relevant data and insights amounted to suppression of material facts, impacting the fairness of adjudication?
- Whether the judgment, though prospective, causes retrospective hardship due to enrolment disparities across states, resulting in manifest injustice?
ALSO READ: “Avoid Personal Criticism of Judges, Criticise Erroneous Judgments”: Supreme Court
Grounds of Review
Filed by Jaideep Subudhi, an aspirant representing a union of Law graduates, judicial clerks, and academic stakeholders, the Review Petition slams the May 2025 order as:
- 3-year rule found unnecessary and irrelevant.
- Recommendations of the Second Judicial Pay Commission were ignored.
- 3-year practice rendered obsolete by the expansion of judicial training.
- The response of the High Courts has not been provided to the parties.
- The issue of pre-service judicial training is completely ignored.
- Pre-service judicial training is preferred over law practice internationally.
- Behavioural and temperament problems, Fundamental flaw, or isolated anecdotal incidents?
- Early practice in court overemphasized. Data from the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) recruitment is irrelevant.
- 3-year rule is severely discriminatory against Women, Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Persons With Disabilities, Transgender Persons.
- 3-year rule excludes other relevant legal experience about BCI-mandated rigorous internship, gained through clinical legal education since 2008, In-house counsels, and corporate practitioners.
- 3-year rule disregards higher legal education, underestimates the importance of LL.M. and PhD, and undermines the practical contributions of legal scholars.
- Viewpoints of academics, law professors, and students are not heard. Generalised and stereotypical assumptions.
- Sudden shift after 22 years arbitrarily severely disrupted the lives of aspirants.
- Alternatives available to the 3-year rule have not been explored.
- Contribution of BCI to the litigation: Hugely disappointing.
- Opportunity to fix the problem, Lost Ad-hoc approach prevails once again.
- Though the Judgment says it is prospective in effect, retrospective, A backward filter to aspirants.
List of Important Dates
The All India Judges Association cases initiated in 1991 with the first AIJA judgment, where the Supreme Court permitted fresh law graduates to sit for judicial service examinations and emphasized the need for an All India Judicial Service and uniformity in service conditions across the subordinate judiciary [(1991) Suppl 2 SCR 206].
This position was altered in 1993, when the second AIJA case mandated three years of practice at the Bar as a prerequisite for eligibility for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) [(1993) 4 SCC 288].
In 1996, the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) was constituted, which later submitted its report in 1999, recommending key reforms. Acting on these recommendations, the third AIJA judgment in 2002 overturned the three-year experience requirement, thereby enabling direct recruitment of fresh graduates into the judiciary [(2002) 4 SCC 247].
The fourth AIJA case in 2010 shifted focus to departmental promotions and did not address the eligibility issue [(2010) 15 SCC 170].
The debate was resumed in 2022 with the publication of Part IV of the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report, which re-examined the experience requirement and sought stakeholder consultation.
Subsequently, I.A. No. 201893/2022 was admitted in WP(C) No. 1022/1989. In 2025, through the fifth AIJA judgment [2025 INSC 735], the Supreme Court restored the three-year Bar practice rule, reaffirming its importance for judicial competence.
This restoration led to the filing of the present Review Petition challenging the 2025 ruling.
Appearance for Petitioner:
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv
Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
Total Number of Petitioners: 206
Jaideep Subudhi (Petitioner), acting on behalf of 206 judicial aspirants
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India
(W.P. (C) No. 1022/1989)
READ JUDGMENT HERE
READ REVIEW PETITION HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on All India Judges Association
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
