India’s Supreme Court, through a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, recently highlighted a critical issue: the feeling of ‘stagnation’ plaguing the lower judiciary. The Bench directly attributed this widespread sentiment to the daunting backlog of cases and the notoriously slow pace of legal proceedings across Indian courts.
A profound sense of inertia, almost a weariness, is increasingly taking hold within the ranks of the district judiciary, particularly affecting younger legal professionals. These individuals dedicate years to subordinate judicial services, often finding themselves with minimal opportunities for career growth or professional recognition, leading to demotivation.
The statistics paint a stark picture: district courts currently face an overwhelming backlog of 4.69 crore cases, as reported by the National Judicial Data Grid. This colossal figure includes 3.69 crore criminal cases and 1.09 crore civil cases, underscoring the immense pressure on the system.
Justice M.M. Sundresh emphasized that a robust and dynamic district judiciary is not just beneficial, but essential, forming an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure. He shared a poignant anecdote about a brilliant law clerk he had encouraged to join the judicial service, only to find her recently expressing deep concerns about her future career prospects within the system.
“The fundamental goal,” Justice Sundresh articulated, “is to ensure the public receives high-quality services from our judicial officers. However, when the very system fails to support and empower these dedicated professionals, it operates in direct opposition to the spirit of the Constitution.”
Alluding to the escalating number of cases reaching the Supreme Court, often involving prolonged delays and indecision even on bail matters, Justice Sundresh stressed the critical need for a “very strong foundation” in the district judiciary. He warned that a weak foundation would inevitably lead to a proliferation of litigation. He also remarked on the vast difference in career progression, noting that judges might accomplish in one year on the bench what lawyers take five years to achieve at the Bar.
Chief Justice Gavai echoed these concerns, elaborating that the primary reason for failing to attract top talent to civil judge positions is precisely this apprehension of stagnation. He lamented that many highly capable individuals who enter the judicial service often do not reach the rank of principal district judge even after 15 or 16 years of dedicated service.
The core issue before the Constitution Bench is a crucial reference: whether judicial officers who already possess seven years of legal experience, acquired either as advocates or pleaders, are eligible to apply for District Judge appointments through the Bar quota.
This complex question was referred to the Constitution Bench by a Division Bench, stemming from a debate over the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. This particular clause states that an individual not already serving the Union or a State can only be appointed as a District Judge if they have practiced as an advocate or pleader for a minimum of seven years and are recommended for the position by the High Court.
Essentially, the court is deliberating whether a serving judicial officer, who previously accumulated seven years of experience at the Bar, qualifies for a District Judge appointment under this constitutional mandate.
This legal quandary originated from an appeal that contested a Kerala High Court decision. The High Court had overturned a District Judge’s appointment, arguing that at the time the appointment order was issued, the individual was not actively practicing as an advocate, but was serving as a Munsif (a lower judicial officer).
The hearings on this significant matter are scheduled to resume on Wednesday.