A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai began hearings to determine the criteria for fixing seniority in the Higher Judicial Services (HJS).

About the Issue

• Cadre Composition: The District Judge cadre of the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) is filled through two streams:
  • Promotees: Civil Judges elevated through promotions (Civil Judge → Senior Civil Judge → District Judge)
  • Direct Recruits: Advocates directly appointed from the Bar.
• While promoters constitute around 75% of the cadre, they often rise slower due to the existing 40-point roster system, which determines seniority largely by date of entry. 
  • As a result, younger direct recruits (mid-30s) outrank promoters (mid-40s) who enter later in career.
• Core Question: Whether the present seniority and promotion framework leads to structural disadvantage for promotee judges and whether reforms are needed to ensure parity and fairness.

Entry and Promotion Structure in Higher Judicial Service (HJS) Structure

• District judges are appointed through two main channels:
  • 75% by promotion from the lower judiciary.
  • 25% by direct recruitment from practising advocates (as per the All India Judges Association case, 2002).
• Within the 75% promotion quota:
  • 50% are promoted on merit-cum-seniority after a suitability test.
  • 25% are selected through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) — a fast-track route for meritorious civil judges.
• R.K. Sabarwal v. State of Punjab (1995): The 40-point roster system was designed to ensure a balanced inter-se seniority between recruits and promotees but has been inconsistently implemented across High Courts.

Impact of Current System

• Significant imbalance exists between direct recruits and promotees in senior ranks
• Limited Promotion Window: Promotee judges often reach the Principal District Judge level close to retirement, limiting their chances for High Court elevation under Article 217(2) of the Constitution.
  • Example: In Bihar, Out of 91 Principal District and Sessions Judges, 86 are direct recruits, only 5 are promotees.
• Loss of Experience: The higher judiciary misses out on decades of trial court experience critical for understanding procedure, evidence, and case management.
• Low Morale and Deterrence: The imbalance discourages talented lawyers from joining the judiciary early and reduces motivation among lower court judges.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Supreme Court Revisions (May 2025)

• Reaffirmed that the LDCE quota must remain 25%, not 10% as adopted by some states.
• Reduced qualifying service for LDCE from 5 years to 3 years to accelerate promotions.
• Restored the rule requiring 3 years of legal practice for civil judge applicants to ensure professional competence.
• Directed that quotas be calculated based on total sanctioned strength, not current vacancies, to prevent distortions.

Way Forward

• Reform the Roster System: Introduce weighted criteria combining years of service, merit, and entry mode.
• Career Fast-Track Mechanisms: Expand the LDCE route to provide quicker promotion for meritorious officers.
• Institutional Monitoring: Empower the Supreme Court Collegium and High Court registries to periodically review seniority lists for compliance.
• Balanced Representation: Implement Andhra Pradesh High Court’s recommendation — reserve 50% of High Court in-service appointments for officers originally appointed as civil judges.
• Merit and Experience Parity: Blend experience-based and merit-based assessments to ensure fair representation from both streams.

DOWNLOAD PDF