SC refers issue of Judges' Promotion to Constitution Bench

A Chief Justice of India led bench of Supreme Court yesterday referred the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers across the country to a five-judge Constitution bench.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran noted that a comprehensive solution is needed to address the limited promotional avenues available to those who join the judiciary at entry-level positions.

"A young judicial officer who enters service at the age of 25 or 26 and retires only as an additional district judge will naturally feel some sort of heartburning," the CJI said.

This order has been passed by the bench while hearing the All India Judges Association case on issues related to service conditions, pay scales, and career progression of judicial officers.

Court noted that there exist divergent views expressed by several high courts and state governments in their responses to the notices earlier issued by the Supreme Court on the issue. “Some high courts have taken a view that on account of the prevailing situation, the judges who initially enter the service as civil judge, junior division are not in the position to reach up to the post of district judges,” the CJI observed.

With a view to address this anomalous situation, where judicial officers who begin their careers as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) often retire without ever reaching the post of principal district judge (PDJ), the court has referred the case to a Constitution Bench.

The court was told that such a move would unfairly disadvantage meritorious candidates aspiring for direct recruitment as district judges.

Notably, the Supreme Court recently also reserved its verdict on the case concerning the appointment of a judicial officer who has completed seven years in practice at the Bar prior to joining the subordinate judicial service as an Additional District Judge against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment from the Bar.

The Supreme Court's decision on this issue could have a significant impact on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution and on recruitment policies for higher judicial service across the country. The court will also decide whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be assessed at the time of appointment, at the time of application, or at both stages. This clarification will address a long standing ambiguity in the recruitment process and determine how service history interacts with constitutional eligibility criteria.

Issue of direct recruitment was referred to a Constitution Bench as the Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions which, in substance, sought review of the February 19, 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor vs Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In that case, a three judge bench had held that members of the judicial service of a State could be appointed as District Judges either through promotion or via the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The petitions sought a declaration that judicial officers who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the judicial service should be entitled to apply for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge under Article 233(2).

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran

Hearing Date: October 7, 2025