Today, On 29th October, During the All India Judges Association Case hearing, CJI BR Gavai questioned why different High Courts follow varying policies for District Judge appointments, hinting at the need for a uniform system across India’s judiciary.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Constitution Bench continued hearing the long-pending case All India Judges Association Case which examines whether a quota should be introduced in District Judge appointments for those who joined the judicial service as Civil Judges (Junior Division).
The five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymala Bagchi heard detailed submissions from Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared on behalf of the Allahabad High Court.
At the outset, Dwivedi requested the Bench to consider appointing two amici curiae in the case—one to represent the interests of the High Courts.
He said,
“There should be two amicus in the case, one representing the High Courts as well.”
Justice Vikram Nath observed,
“That’s the issue. The High Court registry controls everything. If promotees are involved, they tend to hold back data and information.”
Agreeing with the concern, Dwivedi remarked,
“Exactly. Unless the data is presented accurately, there’s a real danger of creating an imbalance.”
Responding to the concern, Chief Justice Gavai said,
“You’re appearing for the High Court. You can place the data before us.”
However, Dwivedi clarified that his representation was limited,
“I’m only representing one High Court, the Allahabad High Court. Most other High Courts aren’t represented here. The data collected by the current amicus is scanty, incomplete, and based on outdated legal positions.”
To this, the Chief Justice noted,
“Notice has been served on all the HCs and State governments.”
Dwivedi then cautioned the Bench against hasty intervention, stating,
“I stand on behalf of Allahabad HC to dissuade your lordships to take any actions based on constitutional principles. There may be situation where your lordships intervention is required but they have the data to take the best decision about the situation prevailing in the state. It’s not just about there should be a quota, it’s also what it should be.”
He further argued that no uniform pattern exists across the country, and imposing a single rule could create imbalance.
He Added,
“There’s no uniform pattern across the country the circumstances differ from one High Court to another. If such variation exists, imposing a uniform quota would disturb the existing balance. It’s better to let each High Court handle the matter individually, since this issue isn’t common to all of them. It’s the constitutional duty of the High Court force them to do it. We have to strengthen the HC, not weaken them.”
The Chief Justice clarified the Court’s stance, saying,
“We have no intention of curbing the High Courts’ discretion in recommending names. However, why should each High Court follow a different policy? Even indirectly, we do not aim to interfere with or limit their authority.”
Dwivedi responded by highlighting several unpredictable factors that affect the issue, including the age gap between candidates and the reasons behind it.
He explained,
“There are various imponderable factors which are in play in determining if there should be quota. First is why is there an age gap? Why is that Civil Judge in junior division is reaching late? Before your lordships’ judgement there was no bar in appearing in the exam. Lawyers are appearing in examination at a late stage. The average age in Allahabad HC is 28. Please get this data from all the HC.”
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989),
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
