The Allahabad High Court urged the Supreme Court to take a hands-off approach, asserting that the district judiciary falls under its domain. It said the apex court should let High Courts decide on service rules and judicial promotions independently.
Tensions from two decades of dissatisfaction regarding the Supreme Court’s framing of service rules for state judicial officers came to a head , as the Allahabad High Court urged the Supreme Court to adopt a “hands-off approach” on the matter.
The Allahabad HC, which has faced criticism from the Supreme Court for delays in case resolutions, stated,
“The SC should leave it to the HCs to chalk out the framework for ensuring adequate promotional avenues to career judicial officers and direct recruit district judges. Article 227(1) gives HCs superintendence over district judiciary.”
Also Read: Bursting of Firecrackers Not a Religious Right, Says Former Supreme Court Judge Abhay Oka
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the high court, questioned,
“Why should the high courts be divested of their authority and duty under the Constitution? It is time to strengthen the HCs, not weaken them. Things have gone too far.”
In 2017, the Supreme Court had tentatively approved a concept paper suggesting that it conduct recruitment tests for direct appointee district judges from among practicing advocates.
Following protests, this proposal was stalled.
Dwivedi asserted,
“SC can’t be fixing retirement age, quota for the career judicial officers and eligibility.”
A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the idea of an All India Judicial Service remains relevant, and if it materializes, the SC may play a role in establishing uniform service rules for the district judiciary.
Justice Kant, who is expected to be the next Chief Justice, clarified,
“The purpose of present proceedings is not to usurp the powers of HCs in relation to district judiciary. We are considering whether a general guideline is needed to bring in some uniformity in promotions to the post of district judge.”
The discussion highlighted discrepancies in promotion pathways; for instance, a civil judge in junior division can take two decades to become a district judge through the seniority-cum-merit route, while lawyers with ten years of practice can become district judges by passing an examination.
The promotion ratio to the district judge position was adjusted from 50-25-25 in 2002 to 65-25-10 in 2010, then reverted back to 50-25-25 by the Supreme Court.
While questioning Allahabad HC’s reluctance toward a uniform service rule for judicial officers and seeking its suggestions, CJI Gavai emphasized,
“We do not even remotely intend to take away powers of the HCs,”
Dwivedi responded,
“I am not giving any suggestion but persuading the SC to adopt a hands-off approach on this issue. The service conditions vary from state to state, and HC is in the best position to consider these aspects while framing service rules. SC can interfere in those cases where the HC is unable to manage the affairs of the subordinate judiciary or where the administration of justice in district courts has broken down…”
He also opposed any quota for judicial officers’ promotions to district judge posts.
Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Grants Asaram Bapu Six-Month Interim Bail on Medical Grounds
For the Punjab and Haryana High Court, senior advocate Maninder Acharya argued that the current system is functioning effectively in both states and there is no need for the Supreme Court to impose a quota for career judicial officers.
Advocates representing direct-recruit district judges from Kerala, Bihar, and Delhi echoed Acharya’s stance, asserting that the Supreme Court should refrain from altering the existing promotion procedures.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
