Broken entrances to the Bench

The judiciary is referred to as the bedrock of Indian democracy. Its independence is essential to safeguard the Constitution and the rule of law. However, in recent years, several disturbing trends have emerged in the process of recruiting civil judges and other judicial officers, raising questions about transparency, fairness and arbitrariness.

The recent Rajasthan Judicial Services (Civil Judge) Preliminary Examination, conducted on July 27, 2025, offers an illustration. This year, seven questions have been deleted from the revised answer key, and this is not an isolated instance. In the 2023 examination, five questions were deleted, and four questions were deleted in 2021.

Similar incidents have also been reported in other states as well, which clearly demonstrates a systemic pattern of errors and lack of responsibility and accountability in conducting these highly competitive examinations.

In the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s three-year practice rule, the 2025 recruitment cycle represents a rare opportunity. After years of preparation, it is a do-or-die situation for many judiciary aspirants. However, the unpredictability is only deepened by the uncertainty regarding vacancies, irregularity in notifications and the absolute discretion of states in framing or altering syllabi. The Haryana Assistant District Attorney examination is a glaring example, where the preliminary stage excludes any law subjects and tests only general knowledge, mathematics and reasoning, disconnecting the evaluation from the profession itself.

There is a lack of transparency in the examination process. States like Himachal Pradesh do not disclose preliminary cut-offs or publish the names of candidates who qualify for the mains. Until the final result is declared, aspirants often remain in the dark about their performance for months, sometimes years. This creates space for selection to be made arbitrarily.

Arbitrariness in recruitment is not merely a theoretical concern raised by aspirants; the courts themselves have acknowledged it in numerous occasions. In a very recent decision, the Supreme Court in Rustom Garg v. Punjab and Haryana High Court found that after evaluation, a candidate discovered that two marks had been wrongly denied to him in the mains examination. Though the mistake was later corrected, by then seven years had already passed since the viva voce and nine years since the selection process had begun. After such a long delay, the relief was more symbolic than real.

A similar case arose before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Heena Shehrawat v. State of Haryana. An aspirant filed a writ petition for wrongly being denied 2.5 marks for a correct answer. The Bench noted that other candidates who wrote the same answer had been awarded marks. The Court directed the State to award 2.5 marks to petitioner and appoint her as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). Again, a glaring error in evaluation had forced an aspirant to knock on the doors of justice

At the highest level too, such irregularities have not gone unnoticed. In Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court admitted that appointments made to judicial posts that had never been advertised, is a clear violation of process. Yet, since the appointees had already served nearly a decade, the Court chose not to unseat them, applying the principle of special equity. Similarly, in Sivanandan CT v. High Court of Kerala (2023), the Court held that fixing minimum viva voce marks after the interview was “changing the rules of the game after the game was played,” a practice it declared manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires. Yet, even here, the Court refrained from disturbing the candidates already selected.

These are only a few examples. Writ petitions concerning the 2024 Rajasthan Judicial Services (Preliminary Examination) are still pending before the Rajasthan High Court, with no relief till date. Multiple similar petitions remain unheard in different High Courts across the country. As aspirants, we cannot help but ask our seniors: what leads to this surge of litigation year after year? Why do pleas concerning recruitment take years, sometimes a decade to resolve? The age-old maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied,” becomes painfully real when an aspirant spends the prime of their youth waiting, only to find that justice, when finally delivered, has lost its meaning.

One mistake in a question paper, one arbitrary change in rules, one delay in judicial hearing is enough to shatter the confidence of thousands. For those who are not privileged enough to wait ten years, it is nothing short of exclusion. A judiciary that aspires to be the protector of rights cannot afford to compromise on fairness at its own entry gate. As the saying goes, “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.” The principle applies equally to the process of selecting judges.

The consequences are severe for the candidates from underprivileged backgrounds and women, who already encounter societal and structural entry barriers. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised time and again that greater representation of women in the judiciary enriches the quality of justice and will lead to a new era in the judicial system. However, many capable candidates are unfairly excluded even before they reach the courtroom due to an almost opaque processes, irregular vacancies and ill-defined syllabi.

The challenges before us did not emerge overnight; they are the outcome of gradual neglect. If ignored further, they risk leaving deep scars not only on individual aspirants, but on the judicial system itself.  The path to the Bench must be open, fair and transparent to everyone. The judiciary, as the guardian of constitutional values, must ensure that the process of judicial appointments reflects those values.

The first step must begin with reforming its own entry process. For aspirants who are on the verge of losing everything, a timely recruitment process, a uniform syllabus across states, disclosure of cut-offs and marks and an independent panel of experts to review question papers are not lofty demands; they are the bare minimum safeguards against arbitrariness.

Women aspirants, often battling social expectations of “settling down early,” cannot afford years of waiting on account of irregular vacancies. The primary victims are the first-generation lawyers and aspirants from rural backgrounds, who lack financial security and family support in the profession. Add to this, the mental health toll that every aspirant feels deeply.

At its heart, this issue is not just about examinations, it is about democracy and fairness. Articles 14 and 16 of our Constitution guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment. These guarantees are violated when judicial recruitment itself becomes arbitrary. The judiciary has always demanded accountability from the legislature and the executive. It must now demand the same from itself.

Laiba Noor is a Delhi-based advocate currently preparing for the judicial services examination.