Trial Judiciary Will Be In Crisis If Junior Division Judges Prioritise District Judge Exam Over Case Adjudication, Says Supreme Court

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced its hearing on the issues regarding inter-se seniority in the cadre of higher-judicial service. The Court is also considering 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 lack of adequate promotional avenues.The 5-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the matter.During the hearing, the bench orally expressed concern over the unintended consequences of the recent judgment in Rejanish KV v K Deepa allowing judicial officers with seven years of experience to appear for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge. Justice Surya Kant observed that while the judgment aimed at balancing seniority, it might inadvertently encourage junior judicial officers to focus more on preparing for the examination rather than adjudicating cases, leading to a crisis at the lower judicial level. Agreeing with him, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, amicus curiae, remarked that such officers would prioritize exam preparation over their core judicial work and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), thereby distorting the incentive structure and shifting the focus away from judicial performance.Sr Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appearing as the amicus in the matter, at the outset drew the attention of the bench towards the disparity in age and career progression between promotee judicial officers and those directly recruited from the Bar. He noted that while members of the Bar often enter the Higher Judicial Service at a relatively younger age, Civil Judges obtain promotion much later in their careers.Citing the Justice Shetty Commission Report, the counsel highlighted that in Andhra Pradesh, the average age of a promoter District Judge is 48 years, while that of a direct recruit is 39. The disparity, he said, was consistent across states- in Assam, it stands at 51 years (promotee) as against 38 (direct recruit), and in Bihar, 54 years as against 41 years, respectively.Justice Chandran weighed in to add, "In Bihar it takes 17 years to become a district judge, for promotees." During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant asked what would be the incentive for an officer to undertake the Limited Department Competitive Exam(LDCE), if a quota is created for promotion.The discussion also veered towards the recent judgment, which held that judicial officers who have 7 years of experience can also appear for direct recruitment examination for appointment as District Judges.Justice Surya Kant said, "That is for balancing of seniority, that is also important. Because of that judgment, if you give so much incentive to the seniority for the direct recruits, our junior cadre will start only working for competing in the (district judge post)"Agreeing to the same, Bhatnagar replied : "And they will not be interested in deciding cases, they will only study for the examination." Justice Kant flagged, "We will have a crisis in the junior division level." Bhatnagar further added that such an incentive structure would change the priorities within the lower judiciary : "Exactly, you will spend 7 years preparing for your district judge etc, then you are not bothered about your ACRs." He further pointed out that the newly introduced eligibility criteria could alter the current working dynamics: "In that matter, hardly anyone was taking LDCE, now they will take because of the incentive and you are assuming that every civil judge after 7 years will clear the examination. We are dealing with 50% of the cadre here, for them seniority and promotion is a very important aspect."Bhatnagar made two main suggestions. Firstly, he clarified that no quota was being sought at the entry level and that only at the super-time scale should promotees be given preference.Notably, a 'super-time scale' promotion refers to a significantly larger jump in promotion on the basis of performance and seniority over time. It is above the regular 'time scale'. Secondly, he suggested the need for a 'zone of consideration' as an alternative approach to the first suggestion. He stressed that when High Courts consider 3 times the number of available posts, for example, for 10 positions, they consider 30 names; amongst those 30 names, 15 should be from direct recruits and 15 from the promotee cadre. Justice Bagchi cautioned that such an arrangement might create “a cadre within a cadre.” He underscored that dividing eligible candidates equally between promotees and direct recruits could stratify the cadre instead of maintaining a common structure. He stressed that any system that divides the cadre into subgroups would make it non-uniform."Your second suggestion will in fact create a cadre...

Trial Judiciary Will Be In Crisis If Junior Division Judges Prioritise District Judge Exam Over Case Adjudication, Says Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags