Supreme Court Warns of Judicial Crisis If Junior Judges Prioritise Exams Over Case Hearings
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing issues related to inter-se seniority and promotions within the higher judicial service. The Court is also examining whether a quota should be introduced for Civil Judge (Junior Division) officers in promotions to District Judge posts, to address the stagnation many of them face in their careers.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, expressed concern that the recent judgment in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa could have unintended consequences.
Justice Surya Kant noted that allowing judicial officers with seven years of experience to sit for direct recruitment as District Judges might lead many junior officers to focus more on exam preparation than on their judicial work, which could result in a “crisis” in trial courts.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, who is assisting the Court as amicus curiae, agreed and said that such officers might prioritise exams over their casework and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), creating an unhealthy incentive system in the lower judiciary.
Bhatnagar further pointed out disparities in age and career progression between promotee officers and direct recruits from the Bar. Citing the Justice Shetty Commission Report, he stated that in many States, the average age of promotee District Judges is much higher than that of direct recruits — for instance, 48 versus 39 years in Andhra Pradesh and 54 versus 41 years in Bihar.
Justice K Vinod Chandran added that in Bihar, it takes almost 17 years for a promotee officer to become a District Judge.
The Bench discussed whether creating a quota for promotions would leave officers with little motivation to take the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). Justice Surya Kant observed that while balancing seniority was important, officers might now focus only on preparing for the District Judge exam instead of deciding cases diligently.
Bhatnagar warned that this could severely affect judicial efficiency at the junior level:
“If officers spend seven years preparing for the District Judge post, they will lose focus on their ACRs and case performance.”
He proposed two suggestions. First, no quota should be introduced at the entry level, but promotees should get preference at the super-time scale level — a higher promotion tier based on seniority and performance.
Second, he suggested a zone of consideration approach, where High Courts shortlist candidates in equal numbers from promotees and direct recruits while considering names for promotion.
However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi cautioned that such a system might create a “cadre within a cadre,” leading to division rather than uniformity among judges.
Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija, representing LDCE candidates, opposed the suggestion, arguing that it could discourage officers from improving their skills, as promotees would continue to be treated differently even after clearing the exam.
Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for the Kerala High Court, also recommended guidelines for giving additional weightage to officers from remote areas when assigning the post of Principal District Judge, though he clarified this would not create a sub-cadre.
Counsels representing promotees from various States including Bihar and Punjab & Haryana also made brief submissions. The hearing will continue tomorrow.
Background of the case
The issue was referred to a Constitution Bench after concerns were raised about career stagnation among Civil Judge (Junior Division) officers, who often never reach the level of Principal District Judge or High Court Judge. The Supreme Court observed that a balance must be struck between the interests of promotees and direct recruits and that earlier three-judge bench decisions must be considered before arriving at a final ruling.
Case Title: All India Judges Association vs Union of India
