Judicial ambitions, empty courtrooms: How a competitive exam has slowed Delhi’s trial courts

On July 1, 2026, the Delhi High Court notified 27 vacant positions in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) under the direct recruitment quota, scheduling the preliminary examination for Sunday, July 26.

Ordinarily, a judicial service examination attracts little public attention beyond those taking it. This year, however, the examination has had consequences that are already visible inside Delhi’s district courts, even before the first question paper is handed out.

Across court complexes - from Patiala House and Saket to Tis Hazari, Rohini, Dwarka and Karkardooma - an unusually large number of judicial officers have proceeded on leave in the weeks leading up to the examination.

In courtroom after courtroom, the presiding judicial officer is absent. And in a striking number of cases, that leave concludes on July 24 or July 25 - barely a day before the DHJS preliminary examination.

There is nothing irregular about judicial officers availing earned leave, medical leave or child care leave. These are statutory entitlements available under the service rules. What the timing does raise, however, is a larger administrative question. Can the trial court system continue to function with the same efficiency when a significant number of judges prepare simultaneously for career-defining competitive examinations?

The answer lies not only in this week’s leave roster, but also in two landmark Supreme Court decisions delivered last year that fundamentally altered career progression within the subordinate judiciary.

To understand why trial courts are currently grappling with this acute shortage of presiding officers, one must examine two pivotal shifts in judicial service jurisprudence engineered by the Supreme Court last year.

These judgments, while fundamentally progressive in their pursuit of judicial meritocracy, drastically expanded the avenues for in-service judicial officers to seek expedited promotions - without providing an administrative safety net for the dockets they leave behind.

In Rejanish KV v. K Deepa and Ors, a five-judge Constitution Bench fundamentally altered the landscape of judicial appointments under Article 233 of the Constitution. Overturning a rigid historical precedent - which restricted the 25% direct recruitment quota for district judges exclusively to actively practising advocates - the Court ruled that serving judicial officers who had completed 7 years of practice at the Bar prior to joining the service are also eligible to compete. This decision, passed in October last year, allowed subordinate judges to apply for direct recruitment exams not just in their home cadre, but across various States and Union Territories.

Months earlier in May, the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India directed a comprehensive modification of the judicial service rules. The ruling increased the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota to 25% and introduced a stringent examination framework for advanced, fast-track promotions from junior to senior civil judge.

The combined effect of these constitutional interpretations was transformative. Subordinate judges were suddenly handed the keys to rapid career progression.

But this progress introduced a complex, unanswered variable: how does the judicial registry manage the local trial courts when a massive chunk of the bench takes weeks off to study?

The ground reality is laid bare in the internal leave roster of the district courts. The data reveals senior judicial officers holding highly sensitive portfolios taking leave en masse under various categories. A striking pattern emerges when one looks at the end dates of these leaves. Almost all of them conclude precisely on July 24 or July 25, just hours before the DHJS preliminary examination on July 26.

Consider the portfolios and the sheer duration of leaves granted to key officers holding the criminal and civil justice system together:

Chief Judicial Magistrates (CJMs): The CJM oversees several important aspects of the district criminal justice system, including remand proceedings, bail applications and magisterial trials. Yet, one Delhi CJM has been on leave for 11 days in July, ending on July 25. Another has been on child care leave for 20 days, also concluding on July 25. Two other CJMs have been on leave for 16 and 13 days respectively, with both periods ending on July 25.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates (ACJMs): One ACJM has been on Medical Leave till July 25, while another has availed 14 days of earned leave ending on July 24.

Senior Civil Judges (SCJs): One Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller has been on child care leave for 12 days, returning on July 25. Another has taken 19 days of child care leave, again concluding on the eve of the examination.

Special jurisdictions: A Principal Magistrate heading a Juvenile Justice Board has been on earned leave for 11 days, rejoining only after the examination weekend.

These leave applications represent the legitimate exercise of statutory rights by judicial officers seeking professional advancement under newly expanded constitutional avenues.

However, the concentration of these dates immediately prior to the examination underscores a major administrative friction point. Serving judicial officers are constrained to navigate standard leave categories to prepare, inadvertently creating an acute operational vacuum at the district level.

According to standard administrative protocols issued by the Principal District & Sessions Judges, when a presiding officer is on leave, their cause list is automatically transferred to a designated "link judge" - a substitute colleague in the same district.

On paper, this sounds like a foolproof administrative failsafe. In practice, it is an unmitigated disaster for the litigant.

A link judge is already drowning under the weight of their own daily board, which regularly consists of 40 to 60 cases. When suddenly burdened with the entire cause list of an absent colleague, the unwritten administrative rule of the trial courts inevitably takes over - link judges only touch what is absolutely urgent.

They will handle fresh arrests and sign initial remand papers. But if you are an undertrial languishing in Tihar Jail, waiting for your regular bail application to be heard by the CJM, the link judge will rarely touch the merits of your case.

The mechanics of this system were recently highlighted in a February 2026 Delhi High Court judgment regarding the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). In that case, the designated special judge was on leave and the prosecution’s application to extend the investigation period beyond 90 days was heard by a link judge. While the High Court upheld the link judge's power under the Criminal Procedure Code (and its BNSS equivalent) to fill the jurisdictional vacuum for "urgent applications," it underscored a vital reality: link judges act as emergency gap-fillers, not permanent substitutes.

Here is how the link roster impacts daily justice delivery at the grassroots level:

Bail and remand: Fresh arrests by investigative agencies and initial remand extensions are processed by the link judge. However, contested regular bail applications - which require a deep reading of the case diary and substantive legal arguments over several hours - are frequently adjourned.

Trials and cross-examinations: Evidentiary hearings, often scheduled months in advance with witnesses travelling from out of state or forensic experts summoned from laboratories, are almost universally deferred. A substitute judge lacks the time an, often, the specific jurisdictional mandate to record complex cross-examinations for a trial they are not permanently overseeing.

Civil injunctions: While urgent ex-parte stay applications might be entertained to prevent immediate loss, substantive arguments on pending civil suits are handed a routine "next date."

Litigants who forfeit daily wages just to afford the bus fare to the court complex are turned away with a slip of paper. Advocates are left pacifying irate clients who cannot comprehend why the justice system has taken a study break.

If the Bar is currently frustrated by the DHJS examinations in Delhi, they are vastly underestimating the storm that is brewing nationally.

The true fallout of the Rejanish KV judgment is cross-border eligibility. Seeing as how serving judicial officers can now apply for direct recruitment quotas in any state, this exam fever will not remain localised. In the coming months, when the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh notify their respective HJS vacancies, Delhi’s district judges will be legally eligible to apply.

What happens then? Will we witness rolling blackouts of the judiciary every time a neighboring state issues an exam notification? Will judges proceed on preparatory medical leave for suitability tests in Rajasthan, followed by child care leave for the mains examination in Punjab?

The ambition of the Supreme Court to cultivate a highly meritorious, intellectually rigorous higher judiciary is laudable. The legal system benefits immensely when seasoned magistrates ascend to the ranks of district and sessions judges through meritocratic competition. However, the administrative infrastructure must evolve to accommodate this without compromising the day-to-day delivery of justice.

Based on the tangible data regarding court calendars, leave rosters and the observed limitations of the link judge system, several structural proposals emerge that High Court registries could logically implement to bridge this lacuna:

1. Strategic examination scheduling during recesses

A primary proposal to mitigate calendar disruption is the strategic utilisation of existing judicial downtime. The district courts in Delhi observe specific annual vacations - a 15-day summer vacation (typically in the latter half of June) and a 6-day winter vacation (December 26 to December 31). If High Courts proactively coordinated to schedule both departmental (LDCE) and direct recruitment examinations exclusively around or immediately following these established recesses, preparatory time would naturally align with court holidays, keeping working days entirely unaffected.

2. Standardising "preparatory leave" frameworks

Currently, judicial officers utilize standard categories like medical or child care leaves for exam preparation, leading to sudden, clustered absences. A logical administrative proposal is the introduction of a transparent, one-time "Preparatory Leave" policy. If this specific leave category required a mandatory 60 to 90 days of advance notice, Principal District Judges would have the necessary lead time to formally reallocate dockets, request the High Court to appoint temporary ad-hoc officers, or structurally redistribute the workload, rather than overwhelming a single Link Judge at the last minute.  

3. Leave caps and jurisdictional rotations

To prevent a complete paralysis of specific judicial tiers, district court registries could strictly enforce a calculated cap on the percentage of officers within a specific jurisdiction allowed to take leave simultaneously. A formalized rotational policy would ensure that a district does not concurrently lose its CJM, its key ACJMs, and several SCJs in the exact same week, thereby maintaining a functional quorum of senior officers.

None of these suggestions seeks to question the legitimacy of judicial officers aspiring to higher office.

Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions were founded on the belief that the judiciary benefits when talented officers are given greater opportunities to advance. The challenge lies elsewhere.

Judicial ambition and access to justice are not competing values. Both are essential to a healthy justice delivery system. The DHJS examination scheduled for Sunday may conclude within a few hours. The administrative questions it has brought into focus, however, are unlikely to disappear with the declaration of the results.

The current impasse is not a reflection of judicial indifference, but rather an administrative oversight. While the Apex Court’s rulings in Rejanish K.V. and All India Judges Association rightly opened dynamic career pathways for subordinate judges, the surrounding court management machinery has yet to adapt.

As more High Courts implement the Supreme Court’s vision of a more competitive and merit-based judiciary, they may also have to confront a quieter, less visible challenge - ensuring that tomorrow’s judges can prepare for tomorrow’s responsibilities without slowing the courts that millions depend upon today.