Today, On 14th October the Supreme Court decided that it will hear Judicial Promotions Case on October 28–29, with CJI Seeking Data from All High Courts: “How Many Appointed Through Direct Recruitment and Judicial Service?” to Examine Seniority and Promotion Patterns in the Judiciary.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench heard the matter regarding insufficient promotional opportunities for judicial officers, highlighting concerns about representation in higher judiciary appointments.
The Constitution Bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Joymalya Bagchi, and K. Vinod Chandran heard the matter concerning the lack of promotional opportunities for judicial officers.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Mehta opened the proceedings, recalling the previous orders of the Court.
He said,
“My Lords issued notice on September 7, and through a detailed order dated October 7, constituted this Bench. The October 7 order records arguments from both sides,”
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta intervened, suggesting a preliminary review.
He proposed,
“My Lords, what is the present factual position? Perhaps it should first be examined by a committee,”
Responding to this, Chief Justice of India said the data could easily be collected since all High Courts were represented.
The CJI stated,
“Since all High Courts are represented before us, gathering the data shouldn’t be difficult. We only need three figures, total number of serving judges appointed to the High Courts, how many were appointed through direct recruitment and how many came from the judicial service,”
As the Bench deliberated, Senior Advocate R. Besant raised a procedural concern.
He argued,
“Two Constitution Benches have already expressed views on this issue, so the question arises whether a five-judge bench can re-examine it. Your Lordships may consider constituting a larger bench, as the entire exercise should not go in vain,”
Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar countered, asserting that previous judgments did not conclusively address the present issue.
He said,
“I am aware of them. I will be citing them. They are open to interpretation. I don’t think they cover the point at all,”
However, Advocate Besant maintained his position, adding,
“I think they are. At the end of the day, judicial time is being invested, so let’s be sure.”
Justice Surya Kant intervened, asking for clarity.
He told the counsel,
“What are the questions according to you are arising? You write it down,”
Chief Justice then noted,
“All interventions till today are allowed.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan pointed out inconsistencies in data collection.
He informed the Bench,
“Some High Courts have submitted details regarding the sources of their judges’ appointments, while others haven’t,”
Justice Kant clarified the Court’s focus, observing,
“The issue concerning the posting of District Judges falls within the purview of the respective High Courts, not the Supreme Court ,let’s stay focused on that.”
Also Read: Karur Stampede Row| Justice Will Prevail: Vijay After Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe
Chief Justice summed up the central question before the Bench, stating,
“The central issue is determining the basis for seniority within the higher judiciary, along with related ancillary matters.”
He added that,
“Counsel supporting the application will be heard on October 28, and those opposing it on October 29. Written submissions are to be filed by October 27. Mayuri Raghuvanshi will serve as the nodal counsel for the supporting side, and Many Krishnan for the opposing side.”
Justice Bagchi addressed the issue that the bench was considering,
“Some posts in the cadre of District Judges are fixed for District Judge (Selection Grade). So there are stratifications in the cadre of District Judge itself. There is District Judge (Entry Level), then you have District Judge (Selection Grade), and then you have District Judge (Supertime Scale). So, what happens – for the post of District Judge, a District Judge (Entry Level) is never considered. You must be upgraded to a District Judge (Selection Grade); then only you come in the zone of consideration (for appointment as Principal District Judge). What we propose to consider is the zone of consideration of movement, and it is not seniority per se but merit-cum-seniority. Let us say Selection Grade comes into 5 posts. We have to have a zone of consideration of 50. Would we put in a preferential quota for the promotees from the base level, that is the Civil Judge Junior Division Level, for consideration in the zone? This is an issue we would like to consider.”
Previously, the bench had requested responses from the High Courts and State Governments due to concerns surrounding this matter.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, noted that Judicial Officers appointed as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) often struggle to advance even to the position of Principal District Judge, let alone attain the status of High Court Judge. This discouraging scenario, he argued, often deters talented young individuals from pursuing a career in the judiciary.
The hearing concluded with the Bench fixing the next round of arguments later this month.
Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS V UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989