New Delhi, Oct 28: The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing on the long-pending issue of career stagnation among civil judges across India, seeking to frame uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in higher judicial services.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, expressed concern that in most states, judicial officers recruited as Civil Judges (CJ) rarely rise to become Principal District Judges (PDJ) let alone reach the High Court. The court observed that this lack of upward mobility discourages bright young lawyers from joining the lower judiciary.
The issue stems from a 1989 petition filed by the All India Judges Association (AIJA), which sought uniformity in pay, service conditions, and promotions across the subordinate judiciary. Over the decades, several landmark rulings have stemmed from this case, shaping judicial service reforms nationwide.
On October 14, the Bench had framed a key question: “What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judicial services?” It also allowed consideration of other related issues during the hearing.
Senior advocate and amicus curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar highlighted the glaring disparity between direct recruits to the district judge cadre and promotee officers from the civil judge cadre, noting that most entry-level judicial officers never make it to the top posts.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, assisted by advocate Sneha Kalita, cited Delhi Judicial Service data showing that out of 13 principal district judges, 11 are promotees while only two are direct appointees.
Meanwhile, senior advocate R. Basant raised a constitutional concern, questioning whether a five-judge bench was sufficient to revisit earlier Constitution Bench rulings that barred reservation once two judicial streams merge into a single cadre. He suggested the matter may need to go before a larger bench.
The CJI assured that the court would decide whether to refer the issue to a larger bench in the next hearing. The case will continue on October 29, with both sides presenting arguments for and against reserving a percentage of PDJ posts for promotee judges.
The apex court has emphasized the need for a comprehensive, uniform solution to address the limited promotion avenues in the subordinate judiciary an issue that has persisted for decades despite multiple interventions.