New Delhi, January 16: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in a significant observation, highlighted the pressing issue of mediocrity within the district judiciary. During a hearing on Tuesday, January16, he emphasized the urgent need for implementing effective measures to ensure the recruitment of competent individuals in the judiciary. This statement came in the backdrop of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s recent decision, which mandates that judicial officers must achieve at least 50% marks in their promotion interviews to be eligible for the position of District Judges.
Also read-Patna High Court Judge Appeals To Supreme Court Over Unpaid Salary Since Elevation (lawchakra.in)
“The one great problem which faces the district judiciary is mediocrity. And if we do not do this… all that happens is the same…this will get replicated in the High Courts- appoint everybody by seniority… you have to ensure that there are good people, that there is incentive to do well and that incentive to do well must also percolate in the appointments to the High Court… when will the judiciary change? …”,
CJI Chandrachud remarked.
The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was deliberating on a set of special leave petitions challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directive to the Haryana Government for appointing 13 judicial officers as additional district and session judges.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing some petitioners, raised concerns about the impartiality of the judgment, noting that the presiding judge had previously dealt with the matter administratively. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the State, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the judge should have voluntarily recused from the case.
A key legal question discussed was whether the High Court could impose a 50% cut-off in the viva voce without amending the rules in consultation with the State Government. Senior Advocate PS Patwalia clarified that this criterion was applicable only to the 65% promotion quota, not affecting direct recruitment or limited departmental competitive examination.
CJI Chandrachud pointed out instances where candidates, despite excelling in written exams, performed poorly in interviews.
“People who otherwise tend to fare well in the written (exam), you will find otherwise in the interview. When you interview them, they are nowhere. Somebody who gets 70/75 or 65/75 in written gets 5/25 in the interview…you start interviewing and realize that the person knows nothing…,”
he observed.
Patwalia highlighted a case where his client scored over 70 in the written exam but only 12 in the interview, missing the cut by a mere half mark. He referenced the Leela Dhar judgment, which emphasized the importance of interviews, especially for fresh candidates. However, he noted that the current candidates were not freshers but were competing for promotion.
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Rakesh Dwivedi, argued that the candidates were unaware of the new mandate as it was not published.
SG Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the State had filed a separate petition challenging the High Court’s direction, arguing that without amending the rules in consultation with the State Government, the High Court could not have prescribed a separate cut-off through an administrative resolution.
Senior Advocate Nidesh Gupta, representing the High Court, defended the decision, stating that the test for the promotion quota was introduced following the Supreme Court’s judgment in the All India Judges Association case. He mentioned that since 2013, there has been a rule requiring a minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate of written test and interview marks. In 2021, the Full Court decided to implement a 50% minimum in viva voce as well, a decision communicated to the State Government. Gupta contended that even if candidates were unaware of this rule, there was no bias in the selection process, and several Supreme Court judgments have consistently upheld the interview as the best method for assessing candidate suitability.
CJI Chandrachud supplemented Gupta’s submission, noting,
“It is not that if they knew it in advance, it would make a difference.”
Gupta further argued that the High Court was merely filling gaps in the rules, and no amendment was necessary. He pointed out that the State of Punjab had accepted this rule, which led to a decrease in pendency rates.
Addressing the petitioners, CJI Chandrachud said,
“All of you participated. The fact of the matter is this. That the original policy of 2013 is a policy. Everybody accepted the fact that the High Court is legitimately entitled to assert that you must get 50% aggregate in the written plus viva. You are not saying that is wrong. Ultimately, the High Court at one stage felt you must get 50% in the interview. You have all participated. Ultimately, the one great problem which face the district judiciary is mediocrity. And if we do not do this… all that happens is the same…this will get replicated in the High Courts- appoint everybody by seniority… you have to ensure that there are good people, that there is incentive to do well and that incentive to do well must also percolate in the appointments to the High Court… when will the judiciary change? …”
Though initially disinclined to entertain the petitions, CJI Chandrachud agreed to adjourn the hearing until the following day.
Case Reference: Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, Diary No(s).508/2024.
Also read-Supreme Court Seeks Formal Application In Gyanvapi Mosque Case (lawchakra.in)
