22 May 2025 Legal Updates

SUPREME COURT MANDATES MINIMUM PRACTICE OF 3 YEARS AS ADVOCATE TO ENTER JUDICIAL SERVICE

(a) Case Title: 

• All India Judges Association & Others v. Union of India & Others 

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 20th May 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice K. Vinod Chandran 

Key Issues and Directions:

The judgment addresses reforms in the recruitment and promotion of judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. The Supreme Court issued the following key directions: 

1. Restoration of LDCE Quota (25%) for Higher Judicial Service: 

• The quota for promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) to the District Judge cadre is restored to 25% (from 10%). 
• Unfilled LDCE vacancies will revert to regular promotion (merit-cum-seniority) in the same year. 

2. Reduction in Minimum Experience for LDCE: 

•  Eligibility for LDCE reduced from 5 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) to 3 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) + total 7 years of judicial service (including Junior Division service). 

3. Introduction of LDCE for Civil Judge (Junior Division to Senior Division): 

• 10% quota for accelerated promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Senior Division via LDCE. 
• Minimum 3 years of service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) required. 

4. Calculation of LDCE Vacancies: 

• Vacancies for LDCE shall be calculated based on cadre strength (not yearly vacancies). 

5. Suitability Test for Regular Promotions (65% Quota): 

• High Courts must frame rules to assess suitability for promotion to Higher Judicial Service based on: 
• Updated legal knowledge, Quality of judgments, Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), Disposal rate , Performance in viva and Communication skills. 

6. Restoration of Minimum Practice Requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Exam: 

(a) Candidates must have 3 years of legal practice before appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam. 

(b) Practice period calculated from provisional enrolment (not AIBE passing date). 

(c) Certificate of practice required from: 

• A senior advocate (10+ years standing) + Principal Judicial Officer OR 
• Experience as a Law Clerk with a Judge/Judicial Officer. 
• Exception: Ongoing recruitment processes before this judgment are exempt. 

7. Training for Fresh Recruits: 

• Newly appointed Civil Judges (Junior Division) must undergo 1 year of training before presiding over courts. 

8. Timeframe for Compliance: 

• High Courts must amend rules within 3 months. 
• State Governments must approve amendments within another 3 months. 

MERE INCLUSION OF A MARK IN TRADING NAME DOES NOT BY ITSELF CONSTITUTE 'TRADEMARK': DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title: 

• Inder Raj Sahni (Proprietor of M/s Sahni Cosmetics) vs. Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 

(b) Court: 

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 19th May, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula 

Background:

The dispute revolved around the trademark "NEHA," claimed by both parties for their respective products: 

• Plaintiffs (Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and Vikas Gupta): Used "NEHA" for Mehandi (henna) and herbal products since 1992. 
• Defendant (Sahni Cosmetics): Used "NEHA" for face creams since 1990. 

The Plaintiffs sued for trademark infringement and passing off, while the Defendant sought cancellation of the Plaintiffs' trademark registrations. 

Key Issues and Reasoning: 

1. Proprietorship of "NEHA" (Issue 1): 

•  The Plaintiffs were held to be the registered proprietors of "NEHA" for Mehandi and herbal products under valid registrations. 

2. Prior Use (Issues 2 & 3): 

• The Plaintiffs proved continuous use since 1994 (though not from 1992 as claimed). 
• The Defendant failed to substantiate prior use since 1990 due to lack of credible evidence (e.g., no sales invoices before 2003). 

3. Validity of Registration (Issue 6): 

• The Defendant’s challenge to the Plaintiffs' registrations was dismissed as they couldn’t prove prior use or statutory grounds for cancellation. 

4. Infringement (Issue 8): 

• No infringement was found as the goods (Mehandi vs. creams) were functionally dissimilar despite falling under the same class (Class 3). 

5. Passing Off (Issue 7): 

• The Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Defendant’s use of "NEHA" for creams caused consumer confusion or misrepresentation. 

6. Delay & Acquiescence (Issues 4 & 5): 

• The Plaintiffs’ suit was not barred by delay, as they acted promptly upon discovering the Defendant’s use in 2019. 

7. Relief (Issues 9 & 10): 

• The Plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed, and the Defendant’s cancellation petitions were rejected. 

Key Takeaways:

1. Prior Use vs. Registration:   

• Registration grants rights under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, but prior use (Section 34) can override these rights if proven. 

2. Evidence Matters:

• Claims of prior use require concrete evidence (e.g., invoices, advertisements). Mere licenses or assertions are insufficient. 

3. Goods Similarity: 

• Infringement depends on whether goods are functionally similar, not just classified under the same category. 

4. Passing Off Essentials: 

• Requires proving goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Common names (like "NEHA") need stronger proof of distinctiveness. 

5. Doctrine of Acquiescence:

• Delay alone doesn’t bar relief unless it amounts to tacit acceptance or prejudice to the defendant. 

Decision: 

• The Plaintiffs retained their trademark rights for Mehandi products but couldn’t stop the Defendant from using "NEHA" for creams. 
• Both the infringement suit and cancellation petitions were dismissed. 

'NO TEST FOR PRESIDENT OF COMMISSIONS, ENSURE 5 YR TENURE': SUPREME COURT DIRECTS CENTRE TO MAKE NEW RULES ON CONSUMER FORUM APPOINTMENTS

(a) Case Title:

• Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & Ors. v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors. 

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of decision:

• May 21, 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Justices Abhay S. Oka and M. M. Sundresh 

Key Issues:

1. Validity of Consumer Protection Rules (2020): 

• The challenge was to Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, etc.) Rules, 2020.  Rule 6(1) prescribed the composition of the Selection Committee for appointing members to State/District Consumer Commissions. Rule 10(2) fixed the tenure of members at 4 years (instead of 5 years as mandated in earlier judgments). 

2. Appointment Process: 

• Whether a written exam + viva was mandatory for judicial members (ex-High Court Judges/District Judges). 
• Whether re-appointments could bypass fresh selection processes. 

3. Permanency of Consumer Forum: 

• Whether consumer dispute redressal bodies should be made permanent (like courts) for efficiency and judicial independence. 

Supreme Court’s Decision: 

1. Struck Down Rule 6(1): 

• The Selection Committee under Rule 6(1) had executive dominance (only 1 judicial member). This violated the separation of powers. 

2. Struck Down Rule 10(2): 

• Tenure of 4 years was held arbitrary; reinstated 5-year tenure for members.

3. Written Exam Not Mandatory for Judicial Members: 

• For President of State Commission (ex-HC Judge), Judicial Members, and District Commission Presidents (ex-District Judges), no written exam is needed. 
• For Non-Judicial Members, written exam + viva remains mandatory. 

4. Re-appointments: 

• No automatic reappointment; fresh consideration under new Rules. 
• Existing appointees (selected via valid process) allowed to complete tenure. 

5. Permanent Consumer Courts: 

• Directed the Union of India to explore creating permanent Consumer Tribunals/Courts (with permanent staff/judges) within 3 months.