District Judge Appointments | Won't Take Away High Courts' Discretion, Says Supreme Court While Mulling Quota For Promotee Judges

While hearing the issue whether there should be a quota for the promotion of serving judicial officers as District Judge posts, the Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it will not issue any direction to take away the discretionary powers of the High Courts in making appointments.The Court also said that it wanted to ensure that the aspirations of all categories, promotee judges and direct recruits, are protected alike.A 5-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the issue of whether there should be a quota in the District Judge posts for the promotion of judicial officers who joined the service at the entry level.This is to address the problem of career stagnation faced by judicial officers who join as Civil Judge Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, due to a lack of adequate promotional avenues.On the second day of hearing, Senior Advocate R Basant, appearing for a few direct recruits from Kerala and Bihar (intervenors), opposed the creation of any such quota, as it would affect the opportunities for direct recruitment from the bar. He underlined that the present issue should be seen from the larger view of ensuring the quality of judicial officers, irrespective of whichever source they come from. He stressed that traditionally, the Indian Judiciary has welcomed direct recruits as a source of appointment to maintain the holistic health of the justice delivery system. He explained : "Right through the Indian judiciary, we have accepted that lateral induction of members of the bar is required and necessary for the health of the institution."He cautioned that while giving opportunities to the promotees, the Court should not overlook the growth of the officers appointed from direct recruitment."I am only on the point that these lateral entry people must not be frustrated. They should be looked after. The grievance of the other section- the promotees cannot be looked at in isolation. For the health of the system, the people directly recruited must also have avenues, they also have career progression." At this juncture, CJI Gavai said : "Nobody doubts about that proposition; the question is whether only their aspirations are to be looked into, or the aspirations of all."On the last hearing, Sr Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in the matter, suggested that a 50:50 (direct recruits to promotees) quota be set up for considering the recommendations to the post of district judge. Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, opposed the Court issuing any directions to change the present arrangement. He highlighted that appointments to the District Judiciary was within the ambit of the High Courts, and directions by the Supreme Court might impinge on their autonomy.He stressed that the Supreme Court should not make any guidelines as it would be in the teeth of Chapter 6 Part 6 of the Constitution, which covers the High Court's authority over the appointment of district judges, their conditions of service, etc. Disagreeing with the amicus' suggestions, Dwivedi said that having a quota would lead to several uncertain issues, like the extent to which such a quota would apply, which would impinge upon the discretion granted to the High Court. He also cautioned against laying down pan-India uniform directions, as the situation in each State was different.CJI however, clarified that even if the bench agrees to lay down guidelines, they will not hinder the discretionary powers of the High Courts. He underlined the need for a certain amount of uniformity in the policy for recommendations across High Courts. “We will not take away the discretion of the HC in recommending names. The recommendation will be made by the HC solely on the satisfaction with regard to the suitability of the candidate to be elevated.”During the hearings, Dwivedi also emphasised that, as per the state-wise data, it was incorrect to say that promotees were not adequately represented. He said : “In Chhattisgarh, out of 23 judges, 14 are promotees; In Gujarat, out of 33 , 24 are promotees; least 13 High Courts, including West Bengal, Delhi, Tamil Nadu- so where is the need for uniformity?"He further explained that the reason for the age gap is that lawyers are making a choice to appear in the exams for Junior Division posts only at a later stage in life. The average age in the Allahabad High Court for taking the exams is 28 years“If I choose to appear at the age of 35 and become a Munsfif and then I complain that I do not get a fast track, these are the problems existing mylords and these facts are not before mylords.”He added that previously, in the Allahabad High Court alone, the age gap between the direct recruits and promotees used to be 10 years, but in recent times, the age gap has reduced, with a variance of merely 4 months to 3 years. This, Dwivedi attributed to the smooth functioning of the roaster...

District Judge Appointments | Won't Take Away High Courts' Discretion, Says Supreme Court While Mulling Quota For Promotee Judges

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags