Promotions of judicial officers: 5-judge Supreme Court Bench to consider whether larger Bench reference needed

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it will consider whether a case raising concerns about the lack of adequate promotional opportunities for entry level judicial officers needs to be examined by a larger Bench of the Court.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi briefly heard the matter today when it was pointed out that two other Constitution Benches have already expressed views on similar issues.

"Two Constitution Benches have taken a view. So we have to see if a five judge bench can look into this. Your lordship may consider setting up a larger bench because the entire exercise cannot be a waste," submitted Senior Advocate R Basant.

Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, however, expressed reservations over whether such a move was required.

"Roshan Lal and Triloki Nath are the two judgments. I do not think it's covered at all," he said.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta suggested that a fact-finding committee could be constituted by the Court while considering the main issues.

CJI Gavai observed that since the High Courts have been made parties to the case, they can give the requisite information

"High Courts are a party. They have to inform us. Total number of service judges appointed to HC - out of them how many from the Bar and how many from district judges," he observed.

The Court eventually said that it would hear the case next on October 28-29, when it will decide whether a reference should be made to a larger Bench.

"We will consider this issue as well - whether it needs reference to a larger Bench," said CJI Gavai,

"You can frame the issues which the Bench should look at," added Justice Surya Kant.

The judge further clarified that the Supreme Court's focus would be on laying down general principles and not delving into the specific rules of each High Court.

"Mode of determining seniority in a cadre - that principle we will lay down," he said.

The CJI added,

"Key question is what is the factor for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judiciary... Needless to say, that it shall also consider other ancillary issues."

The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench of the Court on October 7, after a Bench led by CJI Gavai noted that divergent stands have been taken by High Courts as well as the States/ Union Territories when it comes to deciding how judicial officers are promoted.

Concerns were raised that those who enter judicial service as a Civil Judge (junior division/ entry level post) rarely make it up the hierarchy to the rank of Principal District Judge, let alone become appointed as High Court judges.

Such limitations on the promotional opportunities for judicial officers were deterring bright minds from entering judicial service, the Court was told.

It was also noted that different States had different ways of approaching such promotions.

"In order to put the entire controversy at rest and 13 provide a meaningful and long-lasting solution, we are of the considered view that it will be appropriate if the issue is considered by a Constitution Bench consisting of five learned Judges of this Court," the Court noted at the time, while referring the matter to a five-judge Bench.

The case will next be heard on October 28-29.

[Read Live Coverage]