Supreme Court constitution bench to hear issue of Judges' Promotions on October 28-29

The Supreme Court today ordered to take up the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers across the country on October 28 and 29, 2025. A five judge bench led by CJI BR Gavai will decide on the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judicial service.

Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Manu Krishnan have been appointed as the nodal counsel for the respective sides to prepare the compilations.

On October 7, a Chief Justice of India led bench of Supreme Court had referred the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers to a five-judge Constitution bench. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran had 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 had said. This order was 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 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.

It is to be noted that the Supreme Court Constitution Bench recently had ruled that judicial officers who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining service are eligible to be appointed as District Judges through direct recruitment. Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice BR Gavai, heading the five-judge Bench, had said Article 233 of the Constitution must be read as a whole and not in parts. The Court held that adopting the interpretation in Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan cases would render the first part of Article 233 meaningless.

“The State Government, in consultation with the High Courts, will have to frame rules for judicial officers applying for the post of District Judge,” the CJI said, adding that “an injustice has been meted out to judicial officers by depriving them of this opportunity.” The Bench clarified that the judgment will apply prospectively and will not affect selections or applications made prior to the decision. The Court also fixed the minimum age for applying as District Judge or Additional Judge at 35 years, directing all State Governments to amend their service rules within three months.

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

Bench: CJI Gavai with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Joymalya Bagchi and K Vinod Chandran

Hearing Date: October 14, 2025