New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that some kind of nationwide “uniformity” in criteria for determining seniority of entry-level judicial officers is needed to deal with the slow and uneven career progression of such judges across India.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai, however, made clear that even remotely, it does not intend to encroach into the powers of high courts in recommending names for judgeship.
The bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, is mulling framing uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) cadre.
It took note of the situation that “in most of the states, judicial officers recruited as Civil Judge (CJ) often do not reach the level of Principal District Judge (PDJ), leave aside reaching the position of a High Court Judge. This has resulted in many bright young lawyers being dissuaded from joining the service at the level of CJ”.
At the outset of the second day’s hearing, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, dissuaded the top court from imposing a uniform seniority framework. He said the matter should be left to the discretion of the High Courts, which are constitutionally empowered to manage the administration of the subordinate judiciary.
“The high courts are seized with the facts and the prevailing situations within their states. They are best positioned to deal with the issue of seniority and promotions... It is the time to strengthen the high courts and not to weaken them,” he said.
“Some uniformity has to be there amongst the high courts... we will not be taking away the discretion of high courts for recommending the names. But why should there be different policies for every high court? We do not even indirectly or remotely intend to take away the discretionary powers of the high courts,” the CJI said.
Justice Surya Kant added that the Bench’s directions, if any, would not address “inter se seniority” disputes but would rather lay down general principles for ensuring fairness and consistency across the country.
“There is no question of entertaining individual seniority disputes. It’s going to be a broad, guiding framework,” Justice Kant clarified.
The CJI said the exercise is undertaken as part of a “trial and error” method to improve the situation.
“Then let it be decided by the high courts,” Dwivedi said.
Dwivedi submitted that the data the amicus curiae was “scanty, incomplete, and based on pre-existing legal positions,” and therefore not reflective of ground realities across different states.