SC begins hearing in case for big reform in district judiciary

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday set out to remedy an anomalous situation in the district judiciary which denies equal opportunity for a person joining as a civil judge to rise in ranks and become a high court judge as compared to direct district judge recruits.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai heard arguments on the issue after data presented by various high courts showed that judicial officers recruited as Civil Judge often do not reach the level of Principal District Judge (PDJ), leave aside reaching the position of a high court judge which results in many bright young lawyers being dissuaded from becoming civil judges.

Noting this as a disincentive in the judicial system to attract fresh talent at a young age, the bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi said, “If this is permitted, we will have a crisis in the junior division level.” Justice Kant further observed, “What will be the incentive left for a judicial officer who says why should I work hard if eventually in terms of seniority or in terms of the benefit of higher payscale I am going to lose.”

The court was assisted by senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar in his capacity as amicus curiae who presented three options to address the problem. According to him, one of the ways could be to have a 50-50 allocation for “promotee” judges and “direct recruited” judges in the zone of consideration for appointment as district judges.

Bhatnagar said, “The zone of consideration for appointment to the post of District Judge (Selection Grade) and District Judge (Super Time-Scale) should comprise of 50% officers from the Direct Recruited District Judges and 50% from Promotee District Judges. Thereafter, the appointment would be made on the recommendation of the respective high courts, on the basis of merit cum seniority.”

The bench expressed concerns over accepting this suggestion. Justice Bagchi said, “This suggestion will create a cadre within a cadre.”

This was the first day of arguments when the court heard the amicus, counsels representing the Kerala high court and judicial officers who get appointed as District Judges by appearing in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) among others. The bench will continue hearing the case on Wednesday.

The amicus presented statistics to the court based on responses from various high courts which justified the “anomalous” situation facing the district judiciary. In several states, Bhatnagar pointed out that the senior most District Judges are found to be mostly Direct Recruit District Judges. Although the overall cadre strength of District Judges is in the ratio 50 (Regular Promotion): 25 (Accelerated Promotion): 25 (Direct Recruits), yet the post of Principal District Judge/District Judge (Super Time-Scale) was occupied mostly by Direct Recruits while Promotee District Judges hardly get representation.

He explained that this usually occurs due to the average younger age of the Direct Recruit District Judges who can seek appointment at the age of 35 or above having seven years minimum experience as a lawyer or judicial officer. On the other hand, a promotee District Judge works his way up the ladder being first appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) when he must possess three years of practice as a lawyer. It is only after five years, he can expect a promotion to Civil Judge (Senior Division) and a further five years to become District Judge (Entry level).

The amicus recommended that considering the vast experience, combined with the relatively later entry into the District Judges cadre, the promotee judges should be either provided weightage in terms of years of service or their parallel stream should be considered in terms of seniority to give them a fair chance for elevation as high court judge or possibly a judge of the Supreme Court.

The court is hearing a petition filed by All India Judges Association where Bhatnagar moved an application raising this concern which is leading to stagnation of judges at the lower level. Based on his application, the top court on October 14 agreed to refer the matter to a Constitution bench to consider the question – what should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service.