A crucial decision impacting the judicial system is on the horizon as a constitution bench of the Supreme Court prepares to examine the necessity of creating quotas for civil judges and judicial magistrates in district judge appointments. This move aims to tackle the professional stagnation often faced by junior judges and enhance their career progression, as many rarely ascend to high court positions.
The five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and including justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, is scheduled to hear the matter on October 28 and 29. The court will deliberate on introducing a preferential quota or a designated zone of consideration for judicial officers who start their careers at the foundational level. This is part of a broader initiative to rectify promotion and seniority imbalances within the higher judicial service.
The judiciary has voiced growing concerns that talented young recruits, starting as civil judges or judicial magistrates, often struggle to reach the position of Principal District Judge (PDJ), the apex role in district judiciary, and seldom get elevated to high courts. If the constitution bench supports this quota, it could signal a significant reform in the career trajectory of subordinate judiciary members, potentially making the judicial service more appealing to aspiring lawyers who currently perceive it as a career path with limited growth.
However, opponents of the proposal argue that any quota system in promotions could disadvantage meritorious candidates who enter the system directly, potentially disrupting the current balance between merit and seniority.
The court will hear arguments from both proponents of the quota and those who wish to maintain the existing seniority framework. The hearings are slated for October 28 and 29. The bench will also delve into broader questions concerning how seniority is determined for district judges and whether an extensive fact-finding study is needed to ascertain the extent of stagnation across various states.
During previous hearings, amicus curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar suggested reserving a portion of PDJ posts for officers who began as civil judges or judicial magistrates. Senior advocates R Basant, Vijay Hansaria, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised pertinent questions about the scope of this exercise and whether it might necessitate a referral to a larger bench.
The issue was officially brought before the constitution bench on October 7, stemming from the All India Judges Association case. At that time, the court acknowledged an “anomalous situation” identified by amicus Siddharth Bhatnagar, where judicial officers at the entry level often fail to reach the PDJ rank, let alone a high court position. This trend, the court noted, has discouraged many promising young lawyers from joining the judiciary due to limited career prospects. While some high courts and states acknowledged this stagnation, others contested it, underscoring the need for a thorough judicial review.
A notable instance presented to the court highlighted that out of 19 judges elevated to the Bombay High Court from the service category post-2020, only three began as civil judges, while the remaining sixteen were direct recruits as district judges. This disparity, the court recognized, demands a “meaningful and long-lasting solution” to balance the interests of both direct recruits and promotee judicial officers. The court also acknowledged that judges who started as Civil Judges possess extensive experience accumulated over decades. Ultimately, the court concluded that a five-judge constitution bench is the most appropriate forum to definitively resolve this controversy.