E-Paper
SC to examine if civil judges should get quota in distt roles
The Supreme Court will review if a quota for entry-level judicial officers in district judge appointments is needed to enhance career progression.
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court is set to examine later this month whether a certain quota should be carved out for entry-level judicial officers, including civil judges and judicial magistrates, in appointments to the cadre of district judges, to ensure better career progression for junior judges who often face professional stagnation and rarely rise to the level of high court judges.
The five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, and comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, will take up the matter for hearing on October 28 and 29.
The court will consider whether a preferential quota or zone of consideration can be introduced for those who begin their careers at the entry level of the judicial service, as part of a wider effort to address inequities in promotion and seniority within the higher judicial service (HJS).
The reference originates from a growing concern within the judiciary that bright young recruits who join as civil judges or judicial magistrates seldom make it to the rank of principal district judge (PDJ), which is the highest position within the district judiciary, and in only the rarest of rare cases are elevated to high courts.
The issue has major institutional significance for the judiciary. If the constitution bench recognises the need for a quota or preferential mechanism, it could pave the way for systemic reform in how the subordinate judiciary progresses through ranks, potentially making the service more attractive to talented young lawyers who currently view it as a stagnant career path.
Conversely, those opposing the move warn that any quota in the promotion channel could curtail opportunities for meritorious candidates entering the system as direct recruits, disrupting the balance between merit and seniority that the current framework maintains.
The bench will hear arguments from both sides-- those supporting a quota in favour of entry-level judicial officers and those opposing any alteration to the existing seniority framework.
On October 28, parties advocating a quota system will present their case, while those opposing the proposal will argue on October 29. The bench will also examine the broader question of how seniority should be determined in the cadre of district judges and whether a fact-finding exercise is necessary to confirm the extent of stagnation across states.
During earlier hearings, amicus curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar proposed that a certain percentage of posts in the PDJ cadre be reserved for officers who began their careers as civil judges or judicial magistrates. Senior advocates R Basant, Vijay Hansaria and Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised queries regarding the scope of the exercise and whether the issue could eventually require a reference to a larger bench.
The issue was formally referred to the constitution bench on October 7 by a bench led by CJI Gavai in the All India Judges Association case. The court , at that stage, acknowledged an “anomalous situation”, noted by amicus Siddharth Bhatnagar, where judicial officers recruited at the base level “often do not reach the level of principal district judge, leave aside reaching the position of a high court judge.”
The court observed that this trend had discouraged many capable young lawyers from joining the judiciary at the entry level, given the limited prospects of career growth. The order noted that while some high courts and states accepted the existence of this stagnation, others disputed it, leading to the need for a detailed judicial examination.
In one striking instance cited before the court, senior advocate SB Talekar, appearing for the Maharashtra State Judges Association, pointed out that out of 19 judges elevated to the Bombay High Court from the service category after 2020, only three started as civil judges, while the remaining 16 were directly recruited as district judges.
This disparity, the court noted, called for a “meaningful and long-lasting solution” to strike a balance between the competing claims of direct recruits and promotee judicial officers. “It cannot be disputed,” that judges who were initially appointed as Civil Judges gain rich experience, having served in the judiciary for decades. Furthermore, every judicial officer, whether initially recruited as a civil judge or directly as a district judge, has an aspiration to reach at least up to the position of a high court judge,” the order stated.
The court therefore concluded that a five-judge constitution bench would be best suited to “put the entire controversy at rest.”
