SC reserves decision on making nationwide seniority criteria in judiciary

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 4) reserved its verdict on formulating uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in the higher judicial services cadre to deal with the issue of slow and uneven career progression of judges across the country.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai reserved its verdict on the issue after hearing several senior lawyers, including advocate and amicus curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar, Rakesh Dwivedi, PS Patwalia, Jayant Bhushan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, is considering laying down uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in the Higher Judicial Services (HJS) cadre.

It noted the situation that “in most of the States, judicial officers recruited as Civil Judges (CJs) often do not reach the level of Principal District Judge (PDJ), leave alone rising to the rank of a High Court judge. This has resulted in many talented young lawyers being discouraged from joining the service at the level of CJ.”

Read more: Supreme Court concerned over misuse of POCSO cases, says awareness needed

The bench is concerned over the slow and uneven career progression of entry-level judicial officers across India and began hearing on October 28 on formulating a uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in the HJS cadre. The hearing of this case was also held on 19 October and 4 November.

During the hearing, the bench had said that there is a need for some kind of nationwide “uniformity” in the criteria for determining the seniority of entry-level judicial officers to deal with the slow and uneven career progression of such judges.

On October 14, the bench framed the question, which read: “What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judicial services?” The bench also clarified that while hearing the main issue, it can also consider “other ancillary or related issues”.

Bhatnagar, who is assisting the bench as amicus curiae, highlighted that in most states promotions are “more based on seniority rather than merit”, mainly because of the way the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) is evaluated.

Read more: Supreme Court to examine plea by political parties to publish their memoranda, rules on their websites

Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, prevented the apex court from imposing a uniform seniority structure.

He said the matter should be left to the discretion of the High Courts, which are constitutionally empowered to manage the administration of the subordinate judiciary.

The issue of seniority and career progression of judicial officers across the country was raised in a petition filed by the All India Judges Association (AIJA) in 1989.

On October 7, the apex court referred issues related to career stagnation of lower judicial officers across the country to a five-judge Constitution bench.

,