The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 7, referred the issue of career stagnation faced by young judicial officers to a Constitution Bench, highlighting the challenges arising from limited promotional avenues in the judicial service.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the reference order in the matter concerning the All India Judges Association. The Court had earlier sought responses from various High Courts and State Governments, expressing concern over the slow career progression of officers who join at entry-level positions.

During earlier hearings, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appearing as amicus curiae, drew attention to the “anomalous situation” prevalent in many States. Officers recruited as Judicial Magistrates First Class (JMFC) often fail to rise even to the level of Principal District Judge, let alone reach the High Court. The amicus highlighted that such stagnation discourages talented young law graduates from pursuing careers in the judiciary.

Bhatnagar proposed that a certain percentage of posts in the Principal District Judge cadre be reserved for officers promoted from the JMFC cadre. However, during the hearing, Senior Advocate R. Basant opposed this proposal, arguing that it could deprive meritorious candidates, who are directly recruited as District Judges, of their rightful opportunities.

The Bench, in its order, noted that a delicate balance would need to be maintained between the competing claims of directly recruited District Judges and promoted JMFC officers, which may require examination of earlier rulings by three-judge benches. It concluded that the matter warrants consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench to ensure a long-term and permanent resolution.

Several High Courts had contested the notion that entry-level judicial officers were experiencing career stagnation. CJI BR Gavai remarked that the primary concern was to maintain equilibrium:

“Otherwise, a young judicial officer who enters service at the age of 25-26 and retires only as an Additional District Judge may harbor some dissatisfaction.”

Basant contended that there exists an alternate perspective, noting that directly recruited District Judges often serve throughout their careers at that rank, and their seniority and experience must also be recognized.

CJI Gavai emphasized that the overarching goal is to enhance the efficiency of judicial administration. He recounted an anecdote shared by Justice Sundresh, about a law clerk who joined judicial service but resigned within two years due to limited prospects for promotion, illustrating the real-world implications of career stagnation.

Observing the need for a balanced approach, CJI Gavai stated:

“Some sort of middle path is required, so that the efficiency of administration of justice is enhanced.”

Basant cautioned against attempts to equate unequals, stressing that direct recruits and promoted officers enter service under different circumstances and career expectations:

“They join service fully aware of the consequences, whereas a direct recruit joins later after a long period of practice.”

The Court’s reference of the matter to a Constitution Bench signals its intention to resolve the issue comprehensively, balancing the legitimate aspirations of young judicial officers with the merit-based opportunities of direct recruits, ensuring fairness while preserving the efficiency of judicial administration.