The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, referred a matter concerning the career progression and service conditions of lower judicial officers across the country to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The Court determined that the issues, including limited promotional avenues and resulting career stagnation, require a comprehensive and permanent solution.
The reference order was passed by a bench comprising Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. The bench was hearing a plea filed by the All India Judges Association which raised significant concerns regarding the service conditions, pay scales, and career advancement of judicial officers.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice highlighted the pressing need for a durable solution to address the restricted promotional opportunities for individuals who join the judiciary at entry-level posts. The Court noted that it had previously issued notices to various High Courts and state governments, and their responses revealed divergent views on the matter.
“Some high courts have taken a view that on account of the prevailing situation, the judges who initially enter the service as civil judge, junior division are not in the position to reach up to the post of district judges,” the Chief Justice observed.
The bench took cognizance of what it termed an “anomalous situation” in many states. It was pointed out that judicial officers who commence their careers as a Judicial Magistrate First Class often retire without being promoted to the post of principal district judge, and elevation to a High Court bench remains a distant prospect. The Chief Justice shared an anecdote from Justice Sundresh, whose law clerk had reportedly resigned from judicial service after just two years due to the lack of promotional opportunities.
Representing an opposing viewpoint, Senior Advocate R. Basant argued against measures that might alter the existing recruitment structure. He contended that such a move could unfairly disadvantage meritorious candidates who aspire for direct recruitment as district judges.
Acknowledging the validity of concerns from both sides, the bench emphasized the necessity of a balanced approach. “A young judicial officer who enters service at the age of 25 or 26 and retires only as an additional district judge will naturally feel some sort of heartburning,” the CJI remarked, adding, “Some sort of balancing out is needed, some middle way, so that the efficiency of administration of justice is enhanced.”
Concluding that the matter warranted consideration by a larger bench to resolve the controversy conclusively, the court passed its order. “In any case, to put the entire controversy to rest and to provide a permanent solution, we are of the considered view that the issue is considered by a Constitution bench consisting of five judges,” the bench observed, underscoring that the ultimate goal is to ensure the efficiency of the administration of justice.
