Supreme Court restores minimum three-year legal practice requirement for eligibility in civil judge exams

Supreme Court: In a series of petitions 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, the three-judge bench of BR Gavai, CJI and AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, JJ. held the following:

I. Promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Higher Judicial Service (HJS)

1. Increase in LDCE Quota:
   All High Courts and State Governments shall amend the relevant service rules to increase the quota of promotion through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (‘LDCE’) from 10% to 25% for the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Higher Judicial Service.

2. Revised Eligibility Criteria for LDCE (HJS):
   The minimum qualifying service required to appear in the LDCE for promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to HJS shall be:

   1. At least 3 years of service as Civil Judge (Senior Division), and

   2. A minimum of 7 years cumulative judicial service, including both Junior and Senior Division

II. Accelerated Promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Senior Division

1. 10% Quota for Accelerated LDCE Promotion:
   Amendments shall be made to reserve 10% of the posts in Civil Judge (Senior Division) for promotion through LDCE from among Civil Judges (Junior Division) with a minimum of 3 years’ service.

2. Reversion of Unfilled LDCE Posts:
   Any unfilled LDCE posts (at either level) in a given year shall be filled through regular promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority within the same selection cycle.

III. Uniformity in Calculation of LDCE Vacancies

1. Vacancy Calculation Based on Cadre Strength:
   States and High Courts currently not calculating LDCE vacancies based on total cadre strength must amend their rules to align with this uniform standard.

IV. Suitability Assessment for Promotion to HJS

1. Framing/Amending Suitability Criteria Rules:
   High Courts and State Governments that have not framed or have inadequate rules must do so. The criteria for assessing suitability should include:

   1. Updated legal knowledge

   2. Quality of judgments

   3. Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the last 5 years

   4. Case disposal rate

   5. Viva voce performance

   6. Communication skills and general perception

V. Eligibility for Entry-Level Civil Judges (Junior Division)

1. Mandatory 3 Years’ Practice Requirement:
   All candidates applying for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced law for a minimum of 3 years. Proof must be submitted through:

   1. A certificate by the Principal Judicial Officer, or

   2. A certificate by an advocate with at least 10 years’ standing, duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer.

   3. For those practicing before High Courts or the Supreme Court, certification must come from a 10-year advocate endorsed by an officer designated by that High Court or this Court.

   4. Law Clerk experience shall also count toward the 3-year practice requirement.

   5. All selected candidates must undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court.

2. Practice Period to be Counted from Provisional Enrolment:
   The required years of legal practice shall be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment/registration with the respective State Bar Council.

VI. Applicability and Timeline

1. Prospective Implementation:
   The 3-year practice requirement shall not apply to examinations where the selection process has already been initiated. It shall apply only from the next recruitment cycle.

2. Timeline for Compliance:

   1. High Courts must amend the rules within 3 months from the date of judgment.

   2. State Governments must approve these amendments within an additional 3 months

Issues, Analysis and Decision

• Whether the 10% quota reserved for 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 v. Union of India and others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 (‘Third AIJA case’).

The Court noted that there was a divergence of views among various High Courts regarding the quota allocation for LDCE. While certain High Courts, namely Chhattisgarh, Patna, Kerala, Manipur, Madras, and Uttarakhand recommended restoring the LDCE quota to 25%, others, including Gauhati, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Calcutta, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, favoured retaining the existing quota structure.

The Court noted that even the High Courts which recommended the restoration of the LDCE quota to 25% also suggested that any unfilled seats under this quota should be filled through regular promotion within the same year.

The Court further observed that restoring the LDCE quota to 25%, as originally proposed in the Third AIJA Case¹ (but subsequently reduced to 10% in the Fourth AIJA Case²), would serve as a positive incentive for officers in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division). It would also offer them an opportunity for accelerated promotion to the District Judge Cadre, provided they are meritorious and deserving.

Another difficulty that came to the Court’s notice was the inadequate number of eligible candidates available to appear for the LDCE due to the eligibility criterion requiring a minimum of five years’ experience as a Civil Judge (Senior Division).

The Court observed that in some States, a Judicial Officer who completes around five years of service in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Cadre becomes eligible, in the normal course, for promotion to the District Judge Cadre. This situation has led to a practical inconsistency in the implementation of the LDCE eligibility requirement.

The Court said that if, in a given year, a sufficient number of candidates are not selected under the LDCE quota, it would be appropriate for such unfilled posts to revert to the regular promotion quota, to be filled based on merit-cum-seniority within the same year.

In this context, the Court found that increasing the LDCE quota to 25% would not adversely impact the administration of justice. On the contrary, it would ensure that no prejudice is caused to regular promotees, while simultaneously offering a valuable incentive to meritorious Judicial Officers, enabling them to benefit from accelerated promotion if they meet the required standards of merit.

This arrangement, the Court noted, would maintain institutional efficiency and uphold fairness within the judicial promotion system.

• Whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the aforesaid examination needs to be reduced, and if so, by how many years.

The Court noted that the requirement of five years’ experience as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) had previously been brought to its attention in the order passed in the Fifth AIJA Case³.

The Court compared the position across various States with respect to the average time taken by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to become eligible for the LDCE, as against the average time required to reach the post of District Judge through regular promotion.

The comparative data revealed that in most States, the average time taken by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to ascend through regular promotion and eventually reach the post of District Judge is nearly the same as the time required for a Civil Judge (Senior Division) to become eligible to appear for the LDCE.

In light of this, the Court observed that there would be little to no real incentive for a Judicial Officer to opt for the LDCE route and emphasised that the intended incentive of the LDCE scheme must not be rendered ineffective by the practical manner in which the scheme operates.

The Court emphasised that the primary purpose of providing a special quota for the LDCE is to facilitate accelerated promotion for meritorious Judicial Officers, allowing them to enter the District Judge Cadre at an earlier stage than their less meritorious counterparts. However, if a Judicial Officer is able to enter the District Judge Cadre through regular promotion after completing five years of service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division), then the incentive for opting for the LDCE route is effectively lost.

The Court noted that in several High Courts, Judicial Officers are promoted through the regular channel to the District Judge Cadre after completing five years’ service as Civil Judge (Senior Division). In view of this, the Court held that it would be desirable to revise the eligibility criteria for appearing in the LDCE. Specifically, it recommended reducing the minimum required experience as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) from five years to three years.

At the same time, the Court concurred with the suggestions made by some States that a minimum cumulative experience of seven years, comprising service as both Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be mandated to be eligible for the LDCE for entry into the Higher Judicial Services.

• Whether a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious candidates from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) so that there is an incentive for merit in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)? And If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof and what should be the minimum experience as a Civil Judge (Junior Division).

Referring to its judgment in the Third AIJA Case, the Court expressed the view that a system reserving 10% of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) for promotion of Civil Judges (Junior Division) through the LDCE mechanism should be introduced. Such a system, the Court noted, would serve as an incentive for meritorious candidates by enabling earlier promotional opportunities.

The Court clarified that these reserved seats would be filled through the same process as the one adopted for filling vacancies in the District Judge Cadre through LDCE. It further recommended that the minimum experience required for a Judicial Officer in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to appear for such an examination should be three years.

• Whether the quota to be reserved for the aforementioned departmental examinations in a particular year should be calculated on the cadre strength or on the number of vacancies occurring in the particular recruitment year.

The Court viewed that uniform practice should be followed across all States in the country. Noting that most States are already filling up vacant posts based on the total cadre strength, the Court emphasised that, in the interest of uniformity, the quota reserved for LDCE should be calculated in accordance with the total cadre strength.

• Whether some suitability test should also be introduced while promoting the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Cadre of District Judges against the existing 65% quota for promotion to Higher Judicial Services based on merit-cum seniority.

The Court viewed that each High Court would need to frame its own Rules for determining the suitability of a candidate for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division). However, the Court emphasised that no fixed formula can be established for this process.

The Court further noted that, in States where the Rules for determining suitability have not yet been framed, the High Courts and State Governments should do so immediately. Additionally, the Court instructed that existing Rules should be reviewed to ensure they are adequate for determining a candidate’s suitability for promotion.

In determining the suitability, the Court highlighted several relevant factors to be considered, including:

1. Whether the candidate possesses updated knowledge of law.

2. The quality of judgments rendered by the Judicial Officer.

3. Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the preceding five years.

4. The disposal rate of cases over the preceding five years.

5. Performance in the viva voce.

6. General perceptions, awareness, and communication skills of the Judicial Officer.

• Whether the requirement of having minimum three years practice for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was done away by this Court in the Third AIJA case, needs to be restored? And if so, by how many years?

The Court noted, based on the affidavits filed by almost all High Courts, that the recruitment of fresh law graduates as Judicial Officers without any prior experience at the Bar, which has been permitted over the last 20 years, has not proven to be a successful experiment. The Court observed that such appointments have led to several challenges and concerns.

The Court, while acknowledging the minimal opportunities available to young lawyers fresh out of college, emphasised the value of early exposure to courts and litigants. It observed that such exposure would help inculcate sensitivity to human issues, enhance clarity in decision-making, and develop a deeper understanding of the Bar’s role in the justice delivery system.

The Court further noted that Judges are required from day one to adjudicate matters involving life, liberty, property, and reputation, and that book knowledge and pre-service training cannot substitute the practical courtroom experience gained by working with seniors and observing court proceedings. Such experience is crucial to grasp the complexities of judicial duties.

Importantly, the Court referred to feedback from various High Courts indicating that fresh law graduates often exhibit behavioural and temperament issues upon entry into judicial service.

In light of these considerations, the Court agreed with the majority view of the High Courts and held that reintroducing a requirement of a certain minimum number of years of legal practice before entry into the judiciary is both necessary and beneficial.

• If the requirement of certain minimum years of practice for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is restored, should the same be calculated from the date of the provisional enrolment/registration or from the date of the passing of the AIBE?

The Court recognised that there could be multiple reasons why candidates are unable to appear for the All India Bar Examination (‘AIBE’) immediately, one of them being the differing timelines across universities for declaration of results, which might result in some candidates missing the opportunity to sit for the exam in a given year.

Importantly, the Court noted that upon receiving provisional registration from a State Bar Council, a candidate is legally permitted to practice within that State. In this context, the Court held that the relevant date for calculating legal experience should be the date of grant of provisional registration, not the date of passing the AIBE.

However, the Court also acknowledged a valid concern, that some candidates may obtain provisional registration but never actively practice yet still become eligible to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination merely by the passage of two years. Such candidates, without having any courtroom exposure, could undermine the intent behind requiring practical legal experience, which is to ensure familiarity with the legal system, court procedures, and client interaction.

To address this concern, the Court proposed practical safeguards;

• In Mofussil Courts, where the legal fraternity is smaller, Judicial Officers stationed there can easily verify and certify whether a candidate has genuinely practiced for the requisite number of years.

• For larger urban centers and metropolitan areas, the Court recommended that a certificate from an advocate with at least 10 years of standing, endorsed by the Principal Judicial Officer of the district or station, should be required to confirm the candidate’s active legal practice.

• In the case of candidates practicing before the High Courts or the Supreme Court, the same standard should apply, a certificate from a senior advocate with 10+ years of experience, duly endorsed by an officer designated by the respective High Court or the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the Court held that experience gained as a Law Clerk to Judges or Judicial Officers should also be counted as part of the requisite legal experience, recogniing the value and exposure such roles provide to the judicial process.

The Court further directed that all recruitment processes which had been kept in abeyance owing to the pendency of the present proceedings shall now resume and proceed in accordance with the rules that were in force at the time the respective advertisements or notifications were issued.

[All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184, decided on 20-05-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Amicus curiae: Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Ms. Shaoni Das, Adv.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR 1 Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Kuheli Mitra, Adv. Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R.S.Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Adv. Ms. Sunita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv. Mr. Pravir Kumar Jain, AOR Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s): Ms. A. Subhashini, AOR Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. P Rajaram, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Devansh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ch Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Nandi Kiran Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar, AOR Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv. Mrs. Barnali Basak, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Ms. Anjana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hitesh C Soni, Adv. Ms. Vaishali H Soni, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR 2 Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Ms. Priyanshi Goel, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv. Mr. Vatan, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, AOR Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR Mr. Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. T. L. Garg, AOR Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Dr. J. P. Dhanda, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv. Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR Mr. Surya Kant, AOR Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Ms. Mehraj, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Gupta, Adv. Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mrs. D Tejaswi Reddy, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. T. V. George, AOR Mr. B. D. Sharma, AOR Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Rathore, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Suman, Adv. Mr. Puneet, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Ajay Amritraj, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. P. K. Jain, AOR Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR Mrs. Saroj Raichura, Adv. Mr. Kalp Raichura, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Mr. Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, AOR M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. M. Veerappa, AOR , Mr. Anil Nag, AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar, AOR Mr. Pravir Choudhary, AOR Mr. Reepak Kansal, Adv. Ms. Geeta Rani, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kishan Datta, AOR M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR Mr. Amol V Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR Mr. Gurjas Singh Narula, Adv. Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. K.M. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Neeraj Kr.sharma, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mrs. D Tejaswi Reddy, Adv. Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Yeshu Mehta, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Abheet Mangleek, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Sujay Jain, Adv. Ms. Shreya Kasera, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv., Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. K Rajeev, Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh GA, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sudipta Singha Roy, Adv. Mr. Harsh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Diksha Joshi, Adv. Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Pawan, Adv. Mr. Parvesh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mayur Raj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv. Ms. M. Harshini, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Wasim Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. T A Khan, Adv. , Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR Mr. Ravi Kumar S., Adv. Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv. Ms. Smita Amratlal Vora, AOR Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Ms. Vineeta Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv., Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR , Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mallika Yadav, Adv. Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Ms. Vishakha, AOR Mr. K M Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Wasim S Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Rajeeva Ranjan Rajesh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv. Mrs. Kritygya Kait, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Saushriya Havelia A, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Savadikar Ankur Shirish, Adv. Mr. Viraj M. Parakh, Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Akshay Girish Ringe, AOR Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, D.A.G. Ms. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR