Today, On 4th November, The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on framing uniform, nationwide seniority rules for higher judicial services to address disparities in career progression among judges across India, after hearing extensive arguments on reservation, promotion policies, and the ROTA system.
New Delhi: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday resumed hearing in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989) to decide whether a reservation quota should be provided in District Judge appointments for officers who joined the judiciary as Civil Judges (Junior Division).
The Bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymala Bagchi.
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia submitted,
“In this judgment all three recrutees has joined in the same year but the judgement however holds that the date of joining is not relevent.”
He suggested that “in the zone of consideration there should be 50% of direct and 50% of the promotees, that is one of the suggestion but that is not gonna solve any problem.”
He pointed out that the number of vacancies was much less and said,
“There is always one part of recrutees at a higher level and they will stay like that in the zone of consideration. So they will just come in the zone and go back.”
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta explained that “each state follows a different pattern under the ROTA system, the first two posts go to promotees and the next three to direct recruits, effectively making 75% of the pool comprise promotees.”
Gupta said,
“A new seniority rule should not be put in. That would not be right. Since merit comes into the picture there should not be quota.”
He further added,
“Simpler solutions should be there without breaking the ROTA system. The problem should be solved by reverting to the rule rather than removing it completely.”
Gupta clarified,
“The amicus submissions aim to ensure better opportunities for promotees, but we haven’t claimed that there’s any overall failure in the roster system.”
He opposed any form of reservation, stating,
“Any quota would be a departure from merit. This issue of bright people not joining is in the suggestion sorted out by your lordships earlier judgement in Rejanish. They can take the exam subject to reaching 35 years of age. Now even a lawyer taking the exam would be doing his work so I don’t agree with the submission that they would not be doing their work as a civil judge while preparing for the exam.”
Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan argued,
“Graduation is the classification you are using and graduates can come from either of the two sources. Triloki Nath did not say that the classification you are using should be linked to only one of the sources then that is also permissible.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan stated,
“I have three main submissions. You’ve already seen the data, and Mr. Bhatnagar’s work as amicus has been exemplary. However, it’s incorrect to suggest that promotee judges are necessarily better than direct recruits, the court I’m addressing doesn’t have even one promotee judge among its 34.”
During the hearing, a counsel stressed the need for “impact assessment” and said, “Diversity is very important.”
In response, the Chief Justice said,
“No one is against diversity. In fact, the idea is that there should be representation from all areas.”
The counsel added,
“My submission is that there are already judgements in place. If the system is not broken it should be allowed to work.”
Counsel appearing for direct recruited judges from Maharashtra pointed out that “Shetty Commission data is a decade old so your lordships should not rely on that.”
The Chief Justice clarified,
“We are not relying on that.”
The matter resumed at 2 PM.
When the hearing resumed, Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi said,
“The real issue arises because of the bunching that happens when recruitment is not conducted every year. If appointments were made annually in line with the roster, proportional representation would naturally be maintained. My suggestion is that eligibility should be determined based on the year in which the vacancy arises, and the candidate’s age should be calculated as of that date.”
Counsel for direct recruitees from Madhya Pradesh submitted,
“A problem occurring two or three states should not be a telescope for the whole India. This is not a problem occurring pan India.”
Another counsel said,
“The problem is non implementation of the ROTA system. ROTA system if implemented properly the problem will be solved.”
He further pointed out,
“The ratio actually shows otherwise on the basis of which the application should have been moved otherwise.”
He noted that,
“Although the system was introduced and exams are held every year, recruitment for direct recruits hasn’t taken place, which will eventually cause the system to collapse. The remedy for stagnation among civil judges cannot be worse than the problem itself. If ACRs are conducted yearly, promotion opportunities will increase, preventing stagnation.”
Counsel for one of the direct recruits of Haryana told the court,
“We have only had 6 direct recruits in the last 10 years. I just want to place data on records. Now this candidate waited 3 years for her appointment and if this happens then she will retire as an ADJ. She would not even be anywhere near becoming a District Judge.”
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar said,
“The issue isn’t confined to one state it’s a national concern. If the roster functions properly year after year, many problems can be resolved, though the age gap issue would still persist.”
He further added,
“Even if the roster functions flawlessly and all vacancies are filled on time, the age disparity problem will persist. Hence, the system needs adjustment. While the roster may work at the entry level, bunching occurs during financial upgrades and promotions because of the age gap,”
He explained, referring to the three available promotion avenues for entry-level judges.
Bhatnagar concluded,
“When two categories are integrated into one class they cannot claim quota on the basis of losing their mark. This is about improving the efficiency of the system.”
The hearing concluded for the day.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
