The Supreme Court expressed concern that “brilliant candidates” quit lower judiciary due to years of stagnation without promotion. A Constitution Bench is hearing if prior Bar experience can count towards eligibility for district judge posts under Article 233.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious concerns over the problem of “stagnation” in the district judiciary, pointing out that many “brilliant candidates” who join as civil judges end up leaving the service within a few years because they do not see timely promotions and career growth.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justices M. M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S. C. Sharma, and K. Vinod Chandran made these remarks while hearing an important case.
ALSO READ: CJI Gavai on Bulldozer Verdict: “Immense Satisfaction as It Dealt with Human Problems”
The issue before the court is whether judicial officers, who had already completed seven years of practice as advocates before joining the judiciary, can be considered for appointment as district judges under vacancies reserved for the Bar.
Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan appeared on behalf of a group of civil judges who were denied the chance to apply for direct recruitment as district judges under the Bar quota. He argued that civil judges should also be given an opportunity to compete in such exams.
Bhushan said,
“The reason why we are not getting very good people for the appointment of civil judges is because they feel they get completely stagnated… I will get into the service and now for a complete 15-16 years, I will not even become a district judge.”
The Chief Justice and Justice Sundresh agreed that this stagnation has become a big concern, as it pushes away young and talented entrants. They observed that many “bright young entrants” quit within a short span of time.
The CJI noted,
“Many brilliant candidates who join (lower judiciary)… leave in two years as they do not reach up to the principal district judge, they get retired. They get stagnated in the (lower) district judiciary for years together.”
Justice Sundresh shared a personal experience to highlight the problem. He said,
“One of my law clerks back in the High Court, I pursued her to take up the exam for the (lower) judiciary… she was a topper. Last time she met me and said she wanted to resign. It is deceiving the aspirations of the young mind.”
The Bench is examining the constitutional position under Article 233, which deals with the appointment of district judges. Article 233 states:
“Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.”
It further clarifies:
“A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the high court for appointment.”
Bhushan pointed out that several judicial officers, despite completing seven years of practice as advocates before joining the judiciary, are still barred from applying under the Bar quota.
He said that their petitions before multiple high courts were dismissed on the basis of earlier judgments, which is why the matter has now reached the Supreme Court for a final interpretation.
He argued,
“The issue has now culminated into a constitutional interpretation question of great importance.”
He raised four major questions before the Constitution Bench. The first was,
“whether a judicial officer, who has already completed seven years at the bar before joining judicial service, was entitled to appointment as an additional district judge against bar quota vacancies?”
The second was,
“Whether eligibility for district judge appointments must be assessed at the stage of application, appointment, or both?”
The third question was whether Article 233(2) prescribes separate eligibility for persons already serving in judicial service. The fourth was,
“Whether a combined period of seven years as an advocate and judicial officer would qualify a candidate for district judge appointment.”
To support his argument, Bhushan also referred to the Indian Civil Services Act of 1861 and the debates in the Constituent Assembly to explain the historical basis for the rules on district judge appointments.
The hearing is scheduled to continue on September 24. Earlier, on September 12, the CJI-led Bench had announced that it would hear the matter over three days, from September 23 to September 25.
The Bench said it would carefully examine whether the combined experience of legal practice at the Bar and judicial service could be counted together for eligibility.
However, the Chief Justice also gave a word of caution, stating,
“a situation where a person with just two years’ practice becomes eligible” must be avoided.
Currently, the posts of Additional District Judges (ADJs) are filled in two ways—first, through promotions of lower judicial officers, and second, through direct recruitment of lawyers with at least seven years of experience at the Bar.
Click Here To Read More Reports on CJI Gavai
