The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, led by CJI BR Gavai, wrapped up the All India Judges Association hearing, questioning if promotions based solely on seniority kill merit. Justice Surya Kant’s sharp remarks reignited the debate on fairness in judicial career growth.
New Delhi: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, on Tuesday concluded the hearing in the All India Judges Association case.
The Bench heard extensive arguments on whether a quota or reservation should be introduced in District Judge posts for Civil Judges (Junior Division) to prevent stagnation and ensure fair career progression within the judicial service.
ALSO READ: Farmer Protest Remark| Kangana Ranaut Gets Bail in Punjab Defamation Case
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sidharth Bhatnagar, appearing as Amicus Curiae, opened his submissions by referring to the earlier reference order and highlighted the long-standing challenges faced by Civil Judges who begin their careers at the entry level and serve for many years before promotion opportunities arise.
Bhatnagar explained that judges who start as Civil Judges gain years of experience, and that all judicial officers—whether promoted or directly recruited—aspire to reach the High Court.
He stressed that the system must strike a balance between these two categories of officers so that both have equal prospects for advancement.
He further stated that to maintain
“a balance between these competing claims,”
the issue should be settled by a five-judge Constitution Bench for a lasting and consistent resolution applicable across all States.
Highlighting the root of the problem, the Senior Advocate said that cadre disparity within the judiciary was first noted by the First National Judicial Pay Commission, which had raised concerns about the existing system of promotions.
He emphasized that promotions in most States are primarily based on seniority rather than merit, leading to dissatisfaction among efficient officers who may be overlooked despite strong performance.
According to Bhatnagar,
“In most States, the same roster applies across the cadre, and since merit is often judged only through ACRs where everyone is rated ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good,’ seniority becomes the deciding factor.”
The Amicus Curiae further informed the Court that
“promotee judges, despite having 20–25 years or more of judicial experience, face significant disadvantage in career advancement due to the roster point system governing seniority.”
He explained that this mechanism often excludes them from the zone of consideration for posts such as Principal District Judge.
It was further submitted that promotee judges enter the higher judicial service at an older age, which leads to earlier superannuation.
As a result, even when they are senior to direct recruits, they often retire before becoming eligible for higher promotions.
The Amicus added that this imbalance causes the upper tiers of the judicial cadre to be largely occupied by direct recruits, and therefore, when the time comes for consideration for elevation to the High Court or higher grades, the pool predominantly consists of direct entrants.
Drawing attention to the Justice Shetty Commission Report, Bhatnagar pointed out significant age disparities between promotees and direct recruits across several States:
- Andhra Pradesh – Promotees: 48 years | Direct recruits: 39 years
- Assam – Promotees: 51 years | Direct recruits: 38 years
- Bihar – Promotees: 54 years | Direct recruits: 41 years
He noted that such disparities exist across most States.
However, Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that in Kerala, there are currently five High Court judges who entered through direct recruitment and are around 49 years old, suggesting that the Commission’s data may not accurately reflect the current situation.
The Amicus assured the Bench that he would verify and update the Kerala statistics based on the affidavit filed. Justice Chandran also pointed out that in Bihar, a promotee typically takes nearly 17 years to reach the post of District Judge, showing a considerable delay in career progression.
The Amicus further added that following the ruling mandating three years of practice before entry into judicial service, the average age of officers in the promotee category should now be viewed as effectively higher—by about three additional years.
ALSO READ: Jammu Court Summons BCCI Chief Mithun Manhas in Defamation Case Over JKCA Row
He also referred to the recent judgment allowing judicial officers with seven years of prior experience to qualify for the District Judge post, and said that this adjustment must be factored into age and service calculations.
During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant raised an important concern, stating:
“If such a strong preference is given to seniority among direct recruits, our junior judicial officers may end up focusing solely on preparing for the District Judge examination rather than performing their current duties.”
He further remarked,
“The 25% departmental quota was introduced to reward merit. But if the post is to be filled purely on the basis of length of service, where does that incentive go? Are you suggesting that even the senior-most District Judge won’t get that advantage? Then what motivation remains for me—or anyone else—to strive for excellence if promotions depend only on seniority?”
Read Live Coverage:
Case Title:
All India Judges Association v. Union of India
Click Here to Read More Reports On All India Judges Association case.
