Today, On 2nd May, In the Supreme Court, a significant case concerning the promotion of judicial officers has emerged, sparking widespread interest. The case delves into the criteria and processes governing the elevation of these officers within the judiciary. Legal experts anticipate it to set precedent and shape future promotion policies within the judiciary system.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is currently reserved it’s verdict in a case that involves the interpretation of the rules governing the appointment of senior civil judges as additional district and sessions judges through the promotional category. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, is tasked with determining the specific provisions outlined in Rule 5(1)(1). This rule states that 65 percent of civil judges (senior division) can be promoted to the rank of additional district and sessions judges based on a combination of merit, seniority, and passing a suitability test.
The court is considering a plea submitted by Ravikumar Maheta and Sachin Prataprai Mehta, who are senior civil judge-cadre officers in Gujarat. They have challenged the selection process that resulted in the appointment of 68 judicial officers to the higher position of district judges. The Supreme Court’s verdict will be crucial in clarifying the interpretation and application of Rule 5(1)(1) and it will determine whether the selection process for the higher cadre of district judges conducted in accordance with these rules.
Read Also: Supreme Court Reviews Delhi HC’s Remarks on Judicial Officer’s Conduct
Previously, the promotion of 68 lower judicial officers in Gujarat, including Surat Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma, temporarily suspended by the court. This decision made following CJM Varma’s conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case. During the proceedings, lawyers representing the Gujarat High Court and other parties presented arguments on various aspects, such as the application of merit-cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit in the promotion of in-service senior civil judges to 65 percent of the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges (AD&SJ) within a specific state.
During the course of the hearing, the bench proposed that the case be referred to a Constitution bench consisting of five judges instead of the current three-judge bench. This suggestion made due to the potential impact of the verdict on judicial services throughout the country. The bench recognized the significance of the case and believed that a Constitution bench would provide a more comprehensive and authoritative decision.
The Chief Justice of India stated,
“Given the urgent nature of this matter and its potential impact on the judiciary nationwide, we will augment our bench by two judges on Tuesday morning to address it.”
Despite this, the bench continued with the proceedings and reserved the verdict following arguments from a panel of lawyers, including senior advocates Dushyant Dave, P S Patwalia, and V Giri.
The Chief Justice of India emphasized the focus on interpreting rules, stating,
“I would remind myself always that our mission is only interpreting the rules now.”
Previously, the Supreme Court requested the Gujarat High Court registry to furnish information regarding the process used to shortlist senior civil judges for promotion to the position of Additional District and Sessions Judge (AD&SJ).
Referring to the 2005 service rules, it stipulated that 65 percent of vacancies in the AD&SJ cadre in the state would be filled from the feeder cadre of civil judges (senior division) based on merit-cum-seniority selection criteria. Suspending the promotion of 68 lower judicial officers, the Supreme Court noted that their promotions contradicted the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules of 2005 (amended in 2011), which require promotions to follow merit-cum-seniority principles and pass a suitability test.
The bench stated,
“We are more than satisfied that the impugned list issued by the high court and the subsequent order issued by the state government granting promotion to district judges are illegal and contrary to the decision of this court. The same are, therefore, not sustainable.”
The statement read,
“We have put a hold on implementing the promotion list. The individuals who were promoted are being returned to their original positions prior to their promotion,”
Read Also: Judicial Officer Accusing CJM of Harassment Transferred to New Position
A bench led by retired Justice M R Shah issued an interim order suspending the promotions and referred the case to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the formation of an appropriate bench. This bench, which previously served notices to the state government and the registrar general of the Gujarat High Court on April 13 of the previous year following a plea from two judicial officers, criticized the decision made on April 18, 2023, to promote 68 officers despite being aware of the ongoing case.
The Supreme Court also directed the high court registrar general to submit a response specifically addressing whether promotions for the concerned positions should be based on seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority, and to provide the complete merit list. Earlier, on April 13 of the previous year, the Supreme Court issued notices based on the plea of the two judicial officers. Their petition argued that according to recruitment rules, district judge positions must be filled with a 65% reservation based on merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test. They alleged that the merit-cum-seniority principle was being disregarded, and appointments were being made based on seniority-cum-merit.
They stated that despite scoring 135.5 and 148.5 marks out of 200, respectively, the two judicial officers were overlooked for appointment as district judges in favour of candidates with lower scores.