Should Some District Judge Posts Be Reserved For Entry-Level Judicial Officers Promotion: Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear On Oct 28-29

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear on October 28 and 29 the issue regarding the career stagnation faced by young judicial officers, who join entry-level posts due to limited promotional avenues in judicial service.The 5-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi will determine what should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judicial service. The bench will also consider the ancillary and related issues.The parties who support the proposition that a certain percentage of seats in the cadre of Principal District Judges must be reserved for Judges who joined service as Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates will make the arguments on October 28. The parties opposing the proposition will argue on October 29. Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Manu Krishnan have been appointed as the nodal counsel for the respective sides to prepare the compilations.The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench by the bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran on October 7 in the All India Judges Association case.Today, amicus curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar submitted that intervention applications have been filed, both opposing and supporting the view that judicial officers should be given more promotional opportunities. The amicus has proposed to reserve a certain percentage of posts from the cadre of Principal District Judges for the promotion of Judges selected initially from the JMFC/Civil Judge Cadre.Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta submitted that the bench should first consider whether a fact-finding committee should be appointed to ascertain if this problem actually existed or not. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria said that very few judicial officers in the Delhi Judicial Service get promoted as District Judges.CJI Gavai said that it is possible to ascertain the status from the data furnished by the High Courts.Senior Advocate R Basant raised the issue whether a 5-judge bench would be enough, since there are at least two 5-judge bench judgments taking the view that in an integrated service, further divisions cannot be possible. The amicus curiae however said that those 5-judge bench judgments do not exactly cover the present issue. Basant suggested that the Court should first determine whether a reference to a larger bench is necessary. CJI assured that the bench will consider this issue.Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought to know if the bench would be considering the issue of only promotions to the Principal District Judge cadre or would be considering the issue of promotion to High Courts. CJI replied that the appointment to the High Court cannot be really considered a promotion.Justice Bagchi clarified the issue which the bench was proposing to consider : "Some posts in the cadre of District Judges are fixed for District Judge (Selection Grade). So there are startifications in the cadre of District Judge itself. There is District Judge(Entry Level),then you have District Judge(Selection Grade) and then you have District Judge( Supertime Scale). So, what happens - for the post of District Judge, a District Judge (Entry Level) is never considered. You must be upgraded to a District Judge( Selection Grade), then only you come in the zone of consideration (for appointment as Principal District Judge). What we propose to consider is the zone of consideration of movement, and it is not seniority per se but merit-cum-seniorty. Let us say Selection Grade comes into 5 posts. We have to have a zone of consideration of 50. Would we put in a preferential quota for the promotees from the base level, that is the Civil Judge Junior Division Level, for consideration in the zone?. This is an issue we would like to consider."Earlier, the said bench had sought the responses of the High Courts and the State Governments, expressing concerns over the issue. Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in case, had highlighted an "anomalous situation" in many States, where Judicial Officers recruited as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) often do not reach even the level of the Principal District Judge, leave alone reaching the position of the High Court Judge. The amicus stated that this situation often discouraged bright youngsters from joining the judiciary.While referring to the larger bench, the Court considered the aspect put forward by the amicus, for a proposal to reserve a certain percentage of posts from the cadre of Principal District Judges for the promotion of Judges selected initially from the JMFC Cadre. During the last hearing, Senior Advocate R Basant opposed this proposal, saying that this will deny opportunities to meritorious candidates who wait for direct recruitment as District Judges.In the reference order, the bench observed that a balance will have to be struck between the competing claims. However, this would involve consideration of some of the earlier orders ...

Should Some District Judge Posts Be Reserved For Entry-Level Judicial Officers Promotion: Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear On Oct 28-29

Anmol Kaur Bawa

The bench will determine the criteria for seniority in the Higher Judicial Service.

Tags