Supreme Court reserves judgement on issue of judges' promotions

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers across the country.

CJI Gavai led bench hear various stakeholders for three days before it has reserved the matter for decision. Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar told the bench today, "There is a problem that has arisen, it is not a state specific problem, it is a national issue. Roster will work perfectly at entry level - but at financial upgradation, that is where bunching happens due to age disparity".

Recently, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, had urged Supreme Court to issue general directions on the aspect of promotions. "The Supreme Court should keep a hands-off approach..let there be only general directions," the senior counsel had told the bench.

In response the CJI had said that the court was not looking at passing directions taking away the discretion of the High Courts in recommending names. "But why should there be different policies for every High Court? We do not even indirectly intend to take away their discretion", the CJI added. Senior Advocate Dwivedi went on to argue that the mechanisms in place provide adequate avenues for judicial officers to rise and there was no need for divesting the High Courts of their constitutional duty mentioned under Part VI of the Constitution of India.

Earlier, the Supreme Court mulled over the incentive for junior cadre judges while hearing the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers across the country. "If you give so much incentive to the seniority of direct recruits, our junior cadre will only work for competing", Justice Surya Kant had remarked. Court had further questioned incentive would be left for a judicial officer, who eventually, in terms of seniority or in terms of the benefit of higher payscale, is going to loose out.

A five-judge bench led by CJI BR Gavai is deciding on the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of higher judicial service. 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.

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: November 4, 2025