The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over the “stagnation” in the district judiciary, noting that several “brilliant candidates” leave the service within a few years as they see no realistic prospects of rising to the post of district judge even by the time of retirement.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S.C. Sharma, and K. Vinod Chandran, made the remarks while hearing a crucial case concerning the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of district judges.
CJI Gavai said many bright young judicial officers quit within two years of joining the lower judiciary as they realise promotions to the level of district judge could take 15–16 years or may not come at all. “Many brilliant candidates who join (lower judiciary)… leave in two years as they do not reach up to the principal district judge. They get stagnated in the district judiciary for years together,” the Chief Justice observed.
Justice Sundresh, sharing a personal anecdote, recalled that a former law clerk he had encouraged to join the judiciary as a topper later told him she wanted to resign. “It is deceiving the aspirations of the young mind,” he said.
The bench is examining whether judicial officers who completed seven years of practice as advocates prior to joining the judiciary can be appointed as district judges against vacancies reserved for the Bar.
Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for a group of civil judges, argued that excluding such judicial officers from the Bar quota was unfair. He said the exclusion deters “very good people” from entering judicial service as they fear being “completely stagnated” without promotion opportunities for decades.
Bhushan framed four key constitutional questions before the bench:
- Whether a judicial officer who has completed seven years at the Bar before joining judicial service is entitled to appointment as an additional district judge against Bar quota vacancies.
- Whether eligibility for such appointments must be assessed at the stage of application, appointment, or both.
- Whether Article 233(2) prescribes separate eligibility for those already serving in the judicial services of the Union or State.
- Whether a combined period of seven years as an advocate and as a judicial officer would qualify a candidate for district judge appointment.
Article 233(2) states that a person not in the service of the Union or State is eligible to be appointed as a district judge only if they have been an advocate for not less than seven years and are recommended by the High Court. The bench said it will need to determine if prior experience at the Bar can be combined with judicial service to meet this eligibility.
The CJI, however, warned against adopting an interpretation that would allow candidates with only two years of practice to qualify under the Bar quota, saying such an outcome could distort the scheme of appointments.
Bhushan also referred to the Indian Civil Services Act, 1861, and Constituent Assembly debates to trace the history of district judge appointments. The petitions challenging the exclusion of such judicial officers had earlier been dismissed by high courts, leading to the present reference to the Constitution Bench.
The matter will continue on September 24, with the bench scheduled to hear arguments over three consecutive days till September 25.
