SC reserves verdict on framing nationwide seniority norms in Higher Judicial Service

New Delhi, Nov 4 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on whether uniform, nationwide criteria should be framed for determining seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) to address disparities in career progression for judges across states.

A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi concluded extensive hearings, spanning three days, in the long-running All India Judges’ Association case.

The court is considering whether a national framework is necessary to ensure equitable promotion opportunities for judicial officers entering service as civil judges (junior division).

The bench heard a battery of senior lawyers, including senior advocate and amicus curiae Sidharth Bhatnagar, Rakesh Dwivedi, P S Patwalia, Jayant Bhushan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, among others.

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".

The bench is concerned over the slow and uneven career progression of entry-level judicial officers across India and began the hearing on October 28 on framing uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in the HJS cadre.

The case was also heard on October 19.

During the hearing, the bench had said that some kind of nationwide "uniformity" in criteria for determining seniority of entry-level judicial officers is needed to deal with the slow and uneven career progression of such judges.

On Tuesday, several counsel argued that inconsistency in recruitment cycles across states creates “bunching” leading to wide gaps in seniority and career progression.

“Yearly recruitment is ideal, but when it does not happen for four-five years, what happens to the system?” Justice Kant said.

Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan opposed any preferential quota for civil judges, stating, “Any quota or departure from merit must be exceptional.” Sankaranarayanan, however, emphasized systemic imbalance and said, “The belief that direct recruits are always better is misplaced. There are high courts where not a single promotee serves among dozens of judges.” 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 had also clarified that while hearing the main issue, it can also consider “other ancillary or related issues”.

Bhatnagar, who is assisting the bench as an amicus curiae, advanced the submissions and 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.

“Almost everyone has ACRs marked as ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good,’ which means seniority becomes the de facto determining factor,” he said.

He said that the existing “roster points” system disproportionately disadvantages promotee judges, many of whom have over two decades of judicial experience but are unable to enter the zone of consideration for elevation as principal district judges or high court judges.

“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.

Bhatnagar 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 amicus curiae suggested that a 1:1 ratio between promotees and direct recruits be maintained even at higher grades to ensure proportional representation.

Justice Kant cautioned that excessive emphasis on competitive examinations could create a “crisis” at the junior division level, as younger officers might focus more on promotions than on case adjudication.

“If promotions hinge entirely on competitive exams, judicial officers may neglect their regular duties in pursuit of future advancement,” the amicus said while agreeing to the observation of the judge.

One of the intervenors said that in the Bombay High Court, only district judges, who were direct recruits, were considered for elevation as HC judges since 2020.

The promotee district judges retire before being considered for elevation to the high court, he added.

Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, dissuaded the top 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 issue of seniority and career progression of judicial officers across the country came up in a plea filed by the All India Judges Association in 1989.

On October 7, the top court referred issues related to career stagnation faced by lower judicial officers across the country to a five-judge Constitution bench. PTI SJK SJK KVK KVK