Today, 26th April, The Supreme Court instructed the Gujarat High Court Registry to provide a response regarding the promotion of judicial officers to Additional District Judges. This directive follows a legal petition seeking clarity and transparency in the promotion process. The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal guidelines in judicial appointments. The Supreme Court’s involvement highlights its role in upholding the integrity of the judiciary.
New Delhi:The Supreme Court, on April 26, directed the Gujarat High Court Registry to furnish details regarding its process for shortlisting senior civil judges for elevation as additional district and sessions judges in the state under the promotional category. This directive stems from the 2005 service rules, which specified that 65% of vacancies in the additional district and sessions judges’ cadre should be filled from the feeder cadre of civil judges (senior division) in Gujarat, utilizing a merit-cum-seniority selection criterion.
During the hearing presided over by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, senior advocate V Giri, representing the Gujarat High Court, instructed to submit an affidavit by April 28, outlining the selection criteria employed. The bench sought clarification on how the judicial officers’ names chosen for consideration in the promotion process for additional district and sessions judges.
Read Also:CJI Emphasizes Preservation of Ancient Manuscripts
This matter scheduled for further hearing on April 29. Earlier, the Supreme Court stayed the promotion of 68 lower judicial officers in Gujarat, including Surat Chief Judicial Magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma. Varma notably presided over a case that resulted in the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation lawsuit.
The Supreme Court’s decision to halt these promotions based on its observation that the promotions violated the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules 2005, as amended in 2011, which dictate that promotions must be made based on the principles of merit-cum-seniority and the successful completion of a suitability test.
The bench stated,
“We are thoroughly convinced that the list challenged by the high court and the subsequent order issued by the state government for the promotion of district judges are unlawful and contradict the judgment of this court. Consequently, they cannot be upheld.”
The bench announced,
“We are suspending the enforcement of the promotion list. The individuals promoted will be reverted to their previous positions before their promotion.”
A bench led by Justice M R Shah, now retired, issued a temporary order halting the promotions and referred the case to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to form an appropriate bench for further proceedings. This development occurred during the Supreme Court‘s consideration of a petition filed by senior civil judge cadre officers Ravikumar Maheta and Sachin Prataprai Mehta. They contested the selection process that led to the elevation of 68 judicial officers to the higher cadre of district judges.
The bench initially issued notices to both the state government and the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court on April 13 of the previous year, in response to the plea from the two judicial officers. The bench expressed strong criticism regarding the decision-making process and the order dated April 18, 2023, which promoted the 68 officers despite the ongoing case before the court.
In its order on April 28, the top court expressed,
“It is regrettable that despite the respondents, especially the state government, being aware of the ongoing proceedings and the fact that this court had scheduled the notice to be returnable on April 28, 2023, the state government proceeded to issue the promotion order dated April 18, 2023, subsequent to receiving the notice from this court in the ongoing proceedings.”
The Supreme Court noted that the promotion order issued by the state government explicitly mentioned that it would be contingent upon the outcome of the ongoing proceedings in the apex court. This indicates that the state government itself acknowledged the potential impact of the court’s decision on the promotions.
The court remarked,
“We find it concerning that the state proceeded with such speed and urgency in approving and issuing the promotion order, especially considering that this court was already dealing with the matter and had issued a detailed order alongside the notice,”
The court emphasized that the selection process took place in 2022, indicating that there was no exceptional urgency necessitating the immediate issuance of the promotion order. This is particularly notable given that the court was actively handling the case at that time.
Read Also: CJI Chandrachud Emphasizes Importance of Free Thinking in Legal Career
The court stated,
“We are initially of the view that this appears to be an attempt to circumvent the court’s procedures and the ongoing legal process. The Secretary of the State Government should clarify the unusual urgency displayed in granting promotions and issuing the notification dated 18.04.2023 regarding promotions, with the understanding that these promotions are subject to the final outcome of the proceedings,”
The Supreme Court also directed the High Court Registrar General to provide a detailed response regarding whether promotions to the concerned position were granted based on seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority, and to submit the complete merit list as well. This request came after the court had already issued notices on April 13 in response to the plea filed by the two judicial officers.
The petition highlighted that according to the recruitment rules, appointments to the district judge position should follow a 65% reservation based on the merit-cum-seniority principle and the successful completion of a suitability test. However, the petitioners argued that the appointments were made contrary to this principle, favoring seniority-cum-merit instead.
The two judicial officers who filed the plea obtained scores of 135.5 and 148.5 out of 200, respectively. Despite their higher marks, candidates with lower scores were appointed as district judges, according to their submission.
The context of this case includes the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Surat sentencing Rahul Gandhi to two years in jail on March 23 in a 2019 criminal defamation case related to his “Modi surname” remark.