Case Comment: All India Judges Association V. Union Of India: Experience Mandates And The Challenge Of Gender Inclusivity In The Judiciary
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 10
- 2 min read
Shivam Kumar, Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court’s decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India is significant in discussing judicial reform and diversity. The Court brings back the rule that candidates must have at least three years of practice at the Bar to be eligible for appearing in judicial examination, with the objective of ensuring judges have real courtroom experience and are able to perform their function in a more efficient and cohesive manner. However, this reform creates indirect barriers that may harm gender inclusion in the judiciary. It may go against the right to equality under Article 14 and the protection against discrimination under Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court brought back this rule to ensure better judicial competence. Still, it did not consider how this requirement could exclude many women and first-generation lawyers, especially those from poor or marginalised backgrounds. It also ignores Article 39A, which promotes equal justice and legal aid, and Article 16(1), which promises equal opportunity in public jobs. An opportunity for direct entry into the judiciary has offered a rare chance for professional growth and social progress, particularly for women and marginalised groups. But the legal profession, especially in courts, still poses serious problems for women. These include unfriendly work environments, lack of guidance, biased attitudes, and deeply rooted gender stereotypes. Additionally, social expectations and family structure make it even harder for women to continue long-term legal practice.
This ruling may act as a barrier to the entry of women in the judiciary and mitigate the progress made toward inclusion. It also risks going against India’s global promise under the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)” .This case comment looks closely at the Supreme Court’s judgment on setting experience-based rules for becoming a judge. It delved into the consequences of this rule of mandatory three-year practice and its effect on the gender representation in the Judiciary. It also examines the judgement by analysing the idea of skill and competency and ideas of a diverse judiciary when reforms unintentionally exclude underrepresented groups, especially women.
