Scribd
Upload
4 views2 pages

Introduction

The Supreme Court's April 2025 ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India reinstated a three-year law practice requirement for applying to Civil Judge (Junior Division) positions, reversing an earlier decision. While aimed at ensuring qualified judges, this ruling may hinder access to the judiciary for many, particularly women and underprivileged groups, and contradicts the Shetty Commission's recommendations. The decision raises concerns about the impact on new attorneys facing challenging work conditions and the potential for bias towards those from affluent backgrounds.

Uploaded by

Aniket Singh
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views2 pages

Introduction

The Supreme Court's April 2025 ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India reinstated a three-year law practice requirement for applying to Civil Judge (Junior Division) positions, reversing an earlier decision. While aimed at ensuring qualified judges, this ruling may hinder access to the judiciary for many, particularly women and underprivileged groups, and contradicts the Shetty Commission's recommendations. The decision raises concerns about the impact on new attorneys facing challenging work conditions and the potential for bias towards those from affluent backgrounds.

Uploaded by

Aniket Singh
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Introduction:

In the case of All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme
Court issued a significant ruling in April 2025, reiterating "the condition of three years of law
practice to apply for a Civil Judge (Junior Division) job." The court declared that its earlier
ruling was incorrect and that judges should only be chosen from among more seasoned
candidates who are capable of protecting people's lives, liberties, and property. Although it
might appear to be a means of ensuring justice, it actually has an impact on one's ability to
join India's court in the future.
This decision is torn between maintaining the system's accessibility for all and ensuring
judges are qualified professionals. Although it makes sense for the Court to want judges with
more experience, making everyone spend three years practicing litigation could actually
make matters worse. It goes against the recommendations of reform bodies like the Shetty
Commission, may end up favouring those from affluent backgrounds, and acknowledges that
new attorneys will have to deal with appalling working circumstances. We're discussing cases
where junior attorneys struggle with unjust workplace practices, work for virtually nothing,
and receive little to no direction from more experienced colleagues. This ruling goes against
the Shetty Commission's (2003) recommendation to repeal the regulation and permit recent
college graduates to take the test right away. This criterion may alternatively result in the
exclusion of many qualified applicants, namely women, first-time attorneys, and members of
underprivileged communities.
Refrences:
1. [Link]

You might also like