A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will on October 28 and 29 examine the issue of career stagnation among entry-level judicial officers due to limited avenues of promotion in the subordinate judiciary. The Court will consider whether a portion of Principal District Judge (PDJ) posts should be reserved for promotion of officers who began their careers as Civil Judges or Judicial Magistrates (JMFC).

The five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi will also determine the criteria for seniority in higher judicial service and address related issues. Arguments supporting reservation of posts for promotee judges will be heard on October 28, while those opposing the proposal will be taken up on October 29. Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Manu Krishnan have been appointed as nodal counsel for the two sides.

The issue stems from the All India Judges Association case, referred to the Constitution Bench by a Division Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran on October 7, amid concerns of limited career progression for junior judicial officers.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, acting as amicus curiae, informed the Court that multiple intervention applications had been filed on both sides. He proposed reserving a fixed percentage of PDJ posts for officers promoted from the JMFC/Civil Judge Cadre, to address stagnation and retain young talent.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta suggested that the Court first constitute a fact-finding committee to verify whether stagnation truly exists, while Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria noted that very few officers in the Delhi Judicial Service ever reach the District Judge level.

CJI Gavai responded that the High Courts already maintain data that could help assess the situation. Senior Advocate R. Basant questioned whether the matter should go before a larger bench, pointing out that earlier five-judge rulings held that no internal divisions could exist within an integrated judicial service. The amicus, however, maintained that those precedents did not cover the specific question at hand.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought clarity on whether the Court would examine promotions only to the PDJ cadre or also to High Court judgeships. CJI Gavai clarified that High Court appointments are not promotions.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi further explained that the Court intends to consider zones of consideration within the District Judge cadre—comprising Entry Level, Selection Grade, and Super Time Scale—and whether preferential promotion opportunities should be granted to those rising from the base level.

Earlier, the Court had sought data and views from High Courts and State Governments after the amicus highlighted an “anomalous situation” where officers recruited as JMFCs rarely advance to become District Judges, let alone High Court Judges—discouraging bright candidates from joining the judiciary.

The earlier bench, while referring the matter, acknowledged the need to strike a balance between direct recruits and promotee officers, noting that both groups aspire to reach the High Court bench.

“Judges initially appointed as Civil Judges gain rich experience after decades of service. Every judicial officer—whether direct recruit or promotee—has an aspiration to reach at least up to the position of a High Court Judge,” the Court observed. “Therefore, it is appropriate that the issue be considered by a Constitution Bench to evolve a meaningful and lasting solution.”

Case Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India