‘Brilliant judges leave’: Supreme Court flags stagnation in district judiciary

The Supreme Court observed that many talented judicial officers quit early as promotions to district judge posts take 15–16 years, raising concerns over stagnation and underutilisation in the lower judiciary.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rued over the "stagnation" in district judiciary and underlined several “brilliant candidates” leaving service only after a few years as they don't become district judges even at the time of superannuation.

A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices M M Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S C Sharma and K Vinod Chandran made the observation during the hearing on a legal question that whether judicial officers, who complete seven years of practice as advocates prior to joining the bench, can be appointed as district judges under vacancies earmarked for the bar.

Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for a group of civil judges who were denied participation in direct recruitment examinations for district judge posts, argued that civil judges should also be permitted to take up exams to become district judges under bar quota.

“The reason why we are not getting very good people for the appointment of civil judges is because they feel they get completely stagnated… I will get into the service and now for a complete 15-16 years, I will not even become a district judge,” he said.

The CJI and Justice Sundresh said many "bright young entrants" leave the service after realising they might have to wait 15–16 years for promotion.

“Many brilliant candidates who join (lower judiciary)... leave in two years as they do not reach up to the principal district judge, they get retired. They get stagnated in the (lower) district judiciary for years together,” the CJI said.

Justice Sundresh recounted the experience of his former law clerk.

“One of my law clerks back in the High Court, I pursued her to take up the exam for the (lower) judiciary…she was a topper. Last time she met me and said she wanted to resign. It is deceiving the aspirations of the young mind,” Justice Sundresh said.

The bench is examining questions over the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution that governs appointment of district judges.

“Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State,” Article 233 reads.

It adds, “A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the high court for appointment.”

Bhushan said several judicial officers, despite completing seven years practice as advocates before joining the subordinate judiciary were barred from applying under the bar quota.

Their petitions before various high courts were dismissed, relying on earlier judgments.

“The issue has now culminated into a constitutional interpretation question of great importance,” he argued.

Among the four questions Bhushan raised, one was “whether a judicial officer, who has already completed seven years at the bar before joining judicial service, was entitled to appointment as an additional district judge against bar quota vacancies”?

“Whether eligibility for district judge appointments must be assessed at the stage of application, appointment, or both?” he asked as the second question.

The third issue, he said, was whether Article 233(2) prescribes separate eligibility for persons already serving in the judicial services of the Union or State. “Whether a combined period of seven years as an advocate and judicial officer would qualify a candidate for district judge appointment,” he said about the fourth issue.

Bhushan referred to the Indian Civil Services Act, 1861, and constituent assembly debates to trace the historical basis of district judge appointments.

The hearing would resume on September 24.

On September 12, the CJI-ed bench said it will commence hearing from September 23 on the issues and hear arguments over three days till September 25.

The bench said it will have to examine whether the combined experience of practice at the Bar and subsequent judicial service can be counted toward eligibility.

The CJI, however, cautioned against an interpretation that could lead to “a situation where a person with just two years’ practice becomes eligible.”

The posts of ADJs, who are part of higher judicial service, are filled up through promotions of lower judicial officers. They are also filled up through direct recruitment of lawyers who have at least seven years of experience at the Bar.