The Supreme Court of India is considering whether a larger bench is required to resolve a nationwide issue concerning the lack of adequate promotional opportunities for entry-level judicial officers. A five-judge Constitution Bench on Tuesday addressed the pressing concern that systemic barriers are preventing talented trial court judges from advancing, potentially deterring bright minds from joining the judicial service.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, is tasked with untangling the divergent promotion policies across various states and High Courts. The core issue, as noted in a previous hearing, is that judges who begin their careers in the junior division rarely climb the ladder to become Principal District Judges, much less get appointed to a High Court. This career stagnation has raised alarms about the judiciary’s ability to attract and retain top legal talent.
During the hearing, the primary point of discussion was whether the current five-judge bench could proceed, given that two previous Constitution Benches have already issued rulings on similar matters. Senior Advocate R. Basant argued for a referral to a larger bench to ensure the entire exercise is not rendered futile. “Two Constitution Benches have taken a view. So we have to see if a five-judge bench can look into this,” he submitted.
However, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, serving as amicus curiae, expressed reservations, suggesting the previous judgments do not fully cover the scope of the current case.
The Supreme Court clarified that its objective is not to interfere with the specific rules of each High Court but to establish a uniform set of principles. “Mode of determining seniority in a cadre – that principle we will lay down,” stated Justice Surya Kant. CJI Gavai added that the “key question is what is the factor for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judiciary.”
To gather necessary data, the Court has directed the High Courts, which are parties to the case, to provide information on the number of service judges appointed from both the district judiciary and directly from the Bar.
The matter was initially referred to the five-judge bench on October 7 after observing the inconsistent approaches to promotions nationwide. The Court at the time noted that a definitive ruling was needed to “put the entire controversy at rest and provide a meaningful and long-lasting solution.”
The bench, which also includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, has scheduled the next hearing for October 28-29. On those dates, it will decide whether the case should be referred to a larger bench and will further examine the core issues framed by the parties.
