Supreme Court to Decide if Larger Bench Should Examine Judicial Promotions Issue

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will examine whether a larger Bench should consider the issue of limited promotional opportunities for entry-level judicial officers across the country.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, took note that earlier Constitution Benches had discussed similar concerns.

Senior Advocate R Basant argued that since two Constitution Benches had already ruled on comparable matters, the present Bench should decide if a reference to an even larger Bench is necessary.
“Two Constitution Benches have taken a view. So, a larger Bench may be required; otherwise, the whole exercise will be in vain,” he submitted.

However, Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar disagreed, stating that the previous judgments—Roshan Lal and Triloki Nath—did not directly cover the current issues.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta proposed that the Court form a fact-finding committee to examine the situation in detail.

CJI Gavai pointed out that since High Courts are parties to the case, they should provide detailed information regarding promotions in their respective jurisdictions.
“High Courts are parties. They have to inform us how many service judges have been appointed to the High Court—from the Bar and from the district judiciary,” the CJI observed.

The Bench has scheduled the next hearing for October 28–29, when it will decide whether to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
“We will consider this issue as well—whether it needs reference to a larger Bench,” said CJI Gavai, while Justice Surya Kant asked the counsels to frame key questions for the Court’s consideration.

Justice Surya Kant further clarified that the Supreme Court will focus on laying down general principles of determining seniority in the higher judiciary rather than examining specific High Court rules.
“Mode of determining seniority in a cadre—that principle we will lay down,” he said.

CJI Gavai added that the Bench will also look into ancillary issues, including the criteria for determining seniority among members of the higher judiciary.

This issue was earlier referred to a five-judge Bench on October 7, after the Court observed that High Courts and State Governments had taken divergent positions on the process of promotion for judicial officers.

The Court had noted concerns that officers starting their careers as Civil Judges (Junior Division) rarely reach senior ranks such as Principal District Judge, and only a small number are eventually elevated to High Court judgeships.
Such limited promotional scope, the Court remarked, may discourage bright legal minds from joining judicial services.

Different States also follow different systems for promotions, adding to the inconsistency.
“To bring clarity and ensure a uniform and long-term solution, we consider it appropriate that the matter be heard by a Constitution Bench of five judges,” the Court had observed in its earlier order.

The case will now be heard again on October 28 and 29.