Nationwide Criteria Required To Deal With Slow And Uneven Career Progression Of Judicial Officers: Supreme Court

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai, however, made clear that even remotely, it does not intend to encroach into the powers of high courts in recommending names for judgeship.

The bench, also comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, is mulling framing uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) cadre.

It took note of the situation that "in most of the states, judicial officers recruited as Civil Judge (CJ) often do not reach the level of Principal District Judge (PDJ), leave aside reaching the position of a High Court Judge. This has resulted in many bright young lawyers being dissuaded from joining the service at the level of CJ".

At the outset of the second day's hearing, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, dissuaded the Apex Court from imposing a uniform seniority framework.

He said the matter should be left to the discretion of the High Courts, which are constitutionally empowered to manage the administration of the subordinate judiciary.

"The high courts are seized with the facts and the prevailing situations within their states. They are best positioned to deal with the issue of seniority and promotions... It is the time to strengthen the high courts and not to weaken them," he said.

"Some uniformity has to be there amongst the high courts... we will not be taking away the discretion of high courts for recommending the names. But why should there be different policies for every high court? We do not even indirectly or remotely intend to take away the discretionary powers of the high courts," the CJI said.

Justice Surya Kant added that the Bench's directions, if any, would not address "inter se seniority" disputes but would rather lay down general principles for ensuring fairness and consistency across the country.

"There is no question of entertaining individual seniority disputes. It's going to be a broad, guiding framework," Justice Kant clarified.

The CJI said the exercise is undertaken as part of a "trial and error" method to improve the situation.

"Then let it be decided by the high courts," Dwivedi said.

Dwivedi submitted that the data the amicus curiae was "scanty, incomplete, and based on pre-existing legal positions," and therefore not reflective of ground realities across different states.

"Most high courts are not being represented. Whatever data has been picked up by the amicus is incomplete. I stand up on behalf of the Allahabad High Court to dissuade the court from issuing any directions," Dwivedi said, adding that his plea was "based on a constitutional plank".

He urged the bench to allow individual high courts to handle the issue of seniority within their jurisdictions.

"If the situation differs from state to state, any uniform quota or rule is bound to create imbalance... Let the high courts deal with their own circumstances. This problem does not exist uniformly across all jurisdictions," he said.

Dwivedi also referred to the variance in existing service rules, arguing that any attempt to impose a uniform quota could disrupt the delicate balance between promotee and direct recruit judicial officers.

The hearing remained inconclusive.

On Tuesday, the bench expressed concern over the slow and uneven career progression of entry-level judicial officers across India and began the hearing on framing uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in the HJS cadre.

On October 14, the bench framed the question which reads: "What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services".

The bench also clarified that while hearing the main issue, it can also consider "other ancillary or related issues".

Senior Advocate Sidharth Bhatnagar, who is assisting the bench as an amicus curiae, highlighted that promotions across most states were "driven more by seniority than by merit", owing largely to the way Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are evaluated.

"Promotee judges, being older, often retire before reaching the next promotional stage. Consequently, the top of the cadre is usually occupied by direct recruits, who are younger and hence remain eligible for longer," he said.

He said that most high courts consider three times more judges for promotion as district judges. He suggested that for 30 considerations, 15 should be from the promotee judges and 15 from direct recruits.

The issue of seniority and career progression of judicial officers across the country came up in a plea filed by the All India Judges Association (AIJA) in 1989.

On October 7, the Apex Court referred issues related to career stagnation faced by lower judicial officers across the country to a five-judge Constitution bench.

With PTI Inputs