The Allahabad High Court has appealed to the Supreme Court to maintain a non-interventionist stance on the promotion guidelines for the district judiciary, asserting that the authority to frame these criteria is constitutionally vested in the High Courts.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Allahabad High Court, argued before a five-judge Constitution bench that the Supreme Court should allow High Courts to independently establish the promotion criteria for judicial officers. He cited Article 227(1) of the Constitution, which grants High Courts supervisory powers over the district judiciary, and suggested that the apex court should not divest them of this crucial authority.
The Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, acknowledged the need for some level of uniformity while also recognizing the importance of High Court discretion in this matter.
This discussion arose from a Supreme Court decision on October 14 to refer the issue of seniority determination within the higher judicial services to a Constitution bench. This move followed an application by amicus curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar, highlighting concerns about career stagnation among judges, as part of a petition by the All India Judges Association aimed at improving judicial service conditions.
During the hearing, Bhatnagar argued that promoted judges should receive more favorable consideration in promotions. The court was informed that while directly recruited judges often reach the district judge level much faster, promoted judges, who typically start as civil judges, can take decades to achieve the same position. Data presented indicated a disparity in Uttar Pradesh, where a significant majority of district judges were directly recruited, and similar trends were observed in several other states. However, in some states like Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, promoted judges held a majority of senior positions.
Dwivedi countered that imposing uniform criteria could be detrimental and weaken the High Courts. He stressed that the issues raised were not universal across all states and advocated for a “hands-off” approach from the Supreme Court, emphasizing that service conditions naturally vary by state.
Senior advocate Maninder Acharya, representing the Punjab and Haryana High Court, supported this view, noting that promotee judges were receiving their due through regular recruitment and promotion processes. She provided statistics showing that a substantial number of judges elevated to the High Court in the past decade were promotees, with an average age of 57 upon entry, compared to 55 for directly recruited judges.
Dwivedi also pointed out that the Supreme Court was considering the application despite incomplete data from all High Courts, raising concerns about potential imbalances if decisions were made without a comprehensive understanding of the situation across the country.
The Supreme Court remarked that High Courts are responsible for providing the necessary data and questioned their reluctance to adopt uniform criteria, clarifying that the intention was not to usurp their powers.
A group of directly recruited district judges from Delhi and Kerala also voiced their opposition to any preferential treatment or quotas for promoted judges in promotion matters.
The Supreme Court indicated its focus would be on general rules rather than state-specific conditions. The hearing was adjourned to November 4, as the arguments remained inconclusive.