Legal Diagnosis Of The Sub Silentio Implications In The All India Judges Association Case (2025)
- IJLLR Journal
- Oct 23
- 2 min read
Selvakkumaran S R, Tamil Nadu National law University, Tiruchirapalli
Raja V, Government Law College, Tirunelveli
ABSTRACT
The commentary provides a doctrinal critique of the recent landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025). Over twenty years have passed since the Supreme Court permitted the recruitment of fresh law graduates in the Judicial services. Given the advancements in education and technology, the court found it necessary to recruit talented and qualified fresh law graduates. But the outcome proved suboptimal, as such graduates couldn’t cope with the practical necessities required to run their roles. The role of a judicial officer is not just limited to legal acumen, but also to encompass familiarity with the court and its administration. This issue was therefore brought up before the bench to assess the necessity of recruiting experienced advocates in the Judiciary. The commentary focuses on the court’s finding, mandating a minimum of three years' practice at the bar as an eligibility norm. The Court's opinion to provide certain safeguards to fulfil the eligibility raises critical concerns. Legal practice involves both in-room court practice as well as non- litigant work. The scope of the Judiciary is not confined to customary court practice. They may work as a in-house Counsel, work for Corporate, or before any tribunal in compliance with the law. But the intent to be eligible for a judicial post neglects their work. The commentary critiques the safeguards provided in the judgment that risk the scope of non-litigants in practice. In turn, the decision would reflect on thousands of judicial aspirants all over the country, undermining capable individuals from taking the post in the judiciary.
Keywords: Judicial service, law graduates, eligibility, three years practice, safeguards.
