Supreme Court Restores 25% LDCE Quota for District Judges and Reforms Judicial Recruitment in All India Judges Association Case. The Court addresses eight issues including LDCE quota restoration, minimum experience reduction, merit quota, suitability test, and practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.

Applications seeking clarification and modification of earlier orders regarding quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service, and other issues related to judicial recruitment and promotion.

Restoration of LDCE quota to 25%, reduction of minimum qualifying experience, reservation of merit quota, introduction of suitability test, restoration of minimum practice requirement, and clarification on calculation of quota.

To address issues arising from the implementation of earlier judgments regarding judicial service recruitment and promotion, particularly the reduction of LDCE quota from 25% to 10% and other related matters.

The Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 119 (First AIJA Case) and (2002) 4 SCC 247 (Third AIJA Case) had earlier determined the quota for LDCE at 25% and other recruitment norms. The Shetty Commission had recommended 25% LDCE quota.

Whether the 10% quota reserved for LDCE for promotion to Higher Judicial Service should be restored to 25% as determined in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247. Whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the LDCE examination should be reduced, and if so, by how many years. Whether a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious candidates from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) to incentivize merit. If yes, what should be the percentage and minimum experience as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). Whether the quota for departmental examinations should be calculated on cadre strength or on the number of vacancies in a particular recruitment year. Whether a suitability test should be introduced for promoting Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge against the existing 65% quota based on merit-cum-seniority. Whether the requirement of minimum three years practice for appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination should be restored, and if so, by how many years. If restored, whether the practice period should be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment/registration or from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

The amicus curiae and various stakeholders submitted that the LDCE quota should be restored to 25% to ensure adequate representation of direct recruits from the bar. Some stakeholders argued for reduction of minimum qualifying experience for LDCE to attract younger talent. Arguments were made for introducing a merit quota for promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Senior Division to incentivize performance. There were submissions on whether the quota should be calculated on cadre strength or vacancies. The need for a suitability test for promotion to District Judge was debated. Regarding the practice requirement, some argued for restoration of minimum three years practice, while others opposed it. The issue of whether practice should be calculated from provisional enrolment or AIBE passing was raised by Senior Counsel B.H. Marlapalle.

The ratio decidendi is that the LDCE quota for promotion to Higher Judicial Service should be restored to 25% to maintain the balance between direct recruits and promotees, and that various reforms such as reducing experience requirements, introducing merit quotas, suitability tests, and restoring practice requirements are necessary to improve the quality and efficiency of the judiciary.

This batch of applications raises issues pertaining to the qualification, promotion and selection of candidates who are desirous of either entering the Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and with regard to the promotions at different levels within the Judicial Services. We, therefore, framed the following seven issues for consideration: (i) As to whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short, ‘LDCE’) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service i.e. cadre of District Judge, needs to be restored to 25% as determined by this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247? Another issue (hereinafter referred to as, “Issue No.8”) was flagged by learned Senior Counsel Shri B.H. Marlapalle for consideration.

The matter originated from Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989 filed by All India Judges Association. The Supreme Court delivered judgments in 1991 (First AIJA Case) and 2002 (Third AIJA Case). Subsequently, several IAs were filed seeking clarification and modification of the orders. The Court framed eight issues on 25th April 2023 and 18th May 2023, heard submissions, and delivered this judgment.

• Constitution of India: