The Supreme Court will hear a crucial plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court order that struck down the 2015 amendment to the MP Higher Judicial Service Rules concerning district judge recruitment from the Bar quota.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear on Monday a crucial plea filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging its own order that struck down a 2015 amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.
The amendment in question permitted the High Court to fill district judge (entry level) vacancies by promoting judges from the subordinate judiciary if no suitable candidates were found from the Bar quota (advocates with over seven years of experience) in two consecutive recruitment examinations.
Background of the Case
The 2015 amendment was introduced to tackle a persistent shortage of qualified candidates from the Bar. Between 2011 and 2015, the Madhya Pradesh High Court advertised 304 vacancies for district judge (entry level) posts, but only 11 advocates were found suitable, accounting for just 3.61% of the total posts available.
The unfilled vacancies led to a sharp rise in the workload of serving judges and significantly affected case disposal rates, causing delays in justice delivery across the state. To address this situation, the then-Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh proposed the amendment as a necessary institutional reform.
According to the Supreme Court’s cause list, a bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma will hear the matter.
The plea, filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through its Registrar General and represented by advocate Ashwani Dubey, seeks to stay the High Court’s April 4, 2025, order that had quashed the amendment.
Arguments in the Petition
The petition argues that the amendment did not create a new recruitment process but merely acted as a conditional adjustment within the existing system to maintain continuity in judicial functioning.
“The proviso to Rule 5(1)(c) was introduced as a necessary institutional response to the chronic failure of the direct recruitment process for district judges through the lawyer quota, which remained ineffective since 2006,”
the plea stated.
It further contends that the High Court’s earlier order failed to consider the constitutional rationale and the administrative necessity behind the amendment. The change, according to the plea, aligns with the constitutional goal of ensuring timely justice and efficient judicial administration.
