In a rare and controversial move, the Rajasthan High Court rejected all candidates considered for promotion to District Judge, sparking serious questions about judicial competence and the promotion system within the subordinate judiciary.
NEW DELHI: The recent decision by the Rajasthan High Court to declare all candidates unfit for promotion to the post of District Judge has reignited serious concerns about the health of India’s judicial appointment and promotion system—exposing a deeper, systemic malaise that extends beyond state boundaries and into the very framework of judicial administration.
A Deeper Look Into Rajasthan’s Judicial Selection Woes
In a startling revelation that has stirred debate within the legal fraternity, the Rajasthan High Court recently declared that none of the candidates considered for promotion to the post of District Judge were found suitable. This is not the first time such a development has occurred in the state—raising pertinent questions about judicial standards, training, internal evaluations, and the very structure of promotions within the subordinate judiciary.
The Incident: What Happened?
As per recent official communications, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened to assess candidates eligible for promotion under the Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) rules to the position of District Judge (DJ). Shockingly, all candidates were deemed unfit, either due to below-par performance, adverse entries in service records, or failure to meet benchmark judicial parameters.
This isn’t an isolated incident. A similar situation arose in 2022, when the High Court faced backlash for not promoting any Additional District Judges (ADJs) due to “lack of competence”. The High Court’s stance may reflect its strict adherence to quality and integrity benchmarks but also reveals deeper cracks in the system.
Why This Matters
The position of a District Judge is not just prestigious—it is crucial to the functioning of the judiciary. District Judges are at the helm of the district court system, presiding over civil and criminal matters of substantial public interest. When promotions are held back entirely, the vacuum can stall proceedings and increase the pendency of cases in an already burdened judiciary.
Moreover, senior judicial officers, who have served the judiciary for decades, are denied upward mobility, which can be demotivating and demoralizing.
Root Causes: Systemic or Situational?
While some argue that the eligibility criteria are overly stringent, others believe that years of insufficient training and accountability mechanisms are now showing their consequences. Here are a few systemic issues at play:
- Lack of Regular Judicial Training: In-service judicial officers often face limited access to continuous legal education or skill-based training. Promotion is often based on seniority and service records, not actual courtroom performance or legal acumen.
- Opaque Assessment Mechanisms: The evaluation of officers for promotion remains non-transparent, with adverse entries often going uncommunicated until the final stage.
- Politicization and Lobbying: In some quarters, concerns have been raised over influence-based selections, leading to stricter scrutiny and higher rejection rates during promotion.
- Shortage of Judges vs. Rigid Criteria: Ironically, India faces a shortage of judges, but judicial promotions are often blocked due to inflexible rules or high benchmarks.
- Judicial Stress and Burnout: Lower court judges in India are overworked and under-resourced. Without support mechanisms, even competent officers struggle to maintain consistency in their judgments or meet performance targets.
The Legal Community Reacts
The Rajasthan Judicial Officers Association expressed disappointment, noting that blanket rejection of all candidates casts doubt not just on individuals but on the credibility of the entire subordinate judiciary system. Many advocates have also voiced concerns that this decision could set a negative precedent, further reducing faith in internal promotions.
Legal experts have called for a reassessment of judicial performance evaluation models, stressing that the focus should be on mentorship, feedback-based improvement, and timely communication of deficiencies.
Looking Ahead: The Need for Reform
This situation brings forth an urgent need for reforms:
- Transparent Performance Review Systems: Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) should be replaced or supplemented with more objective, transparent, and participatory assessment models.
- Mandatory Mid-Career Judicial Training: Officers should undergo refresher legal and management courses periodically to stay updated and improve efficiency.
- Balanced Criteria: Promotions should consider not only the quantitative output (e.g., number of judgments) but also qualitative factors like judicial reasoning, conduct, and fairness.
- Appeal & Redressal Mechanisms: Rejected officers should have access to fair redressal forums to question adverse entries or seek review of assessments.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 3 Judicial Officers As Judges For Rajasthan High Court
Other High Courts with Similar Trends
- Punjab & Haryana High Court
In 2019, the Punjab & Haryana High Court faced severe backlash after it did not recommend any subordinate judicial officers for elevation, citing low performance and lack of integrity in some cases. Senior judicial officers claimed that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were used subjectively, without giving them a fair chance to defend or improve.
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
In 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed over several eligible candidates for promotion to District Judge positions. The reasons ranged from disciplinary proceedings, alleged inefficiency, to unsatisfactory judicial output. Judicial officers protested against the non-transparent DPC process, claiming no prior warning or adverse entry communication.
- Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad) High Court
In 2021, several ADJs in Uttar Pradesh filed representations after being repeatedly denied promotion despite completing the required years of service. The promotions were halted due to pending inquiries and ambiguous entries in service records, which were often not disclosed to the concerned officers in advance—a violation of principles of natural justice.
- Delhi High Court
In 2023, the Delhi High Court sparked controversy when none of the eligible candidates for promotion under Rule 16 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules were cleared. The Delhi Judicial Service Association raised concerns over lack of objective benchmarks, and alleged that the system discouraged even diligent officers due to its unpredictability.
- Karnataka High Court
In 2022, during its DPC assessment, the Karnataka High Court deemed many senior civil judges unfit for promotion to DJ rank. A few officers resigned in protest, citing an unfair appraisal system and no provision for explanation or appeal.
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision to promote no one to the post of District Judge may seem drastic, but it is symptomatic of a broader malaise. Similar trends in Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, and Karnataka point to an urgent need for judicial reform—not just in how judges are selected and promoted, but also in how they are mentored, assessed, and empowered throughout their careers.
If left unaddressed, these recurring deadlocks will not only demoralize the judiciary but also cripple justice delivery at the grassroots level—something India can ill afford.
READ MORE REPORTS ON RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
