Supreme Court Rules Against Mandating 50% High Court Judges from District Judiciary

Recently, the Apex Court refused to direct high courts to tinker with the selection process of judges in higher judiciary. It said that high courts would not be directed to appoint 50% of their judges from district judiciary.

“A direction to fill up 50% of the seats in the High Court from the service quota is concerned, we are afraid, as to whether such a direction can be issued on the judicial side. We, therefore, are not inclined to consider the said prayer,” said the Apex Court.

The three judge bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Sanjay Karol, however, permitted the litigants to pursue the matter before appropriate legal forums.

The interlocutory application (I.A.) was moved by the Judicial Service Association of Delhi. Their main demand was to enhance the number of judges being elevated from service to high courts. Currently, for each high court judge who has been elevated from the service quota, there are three corresponding judges who are elevated from the bar.

The applicants asked the Supreme Court to issue some guidance regarding the situation when seats from Bar Quota stay vacant for 6 months. In that condition, the petitioner demanded that half of the total strength of high court judges should be filled from the district judiciary.

The other two demands of the applicants also pertained to increasing or maintaining fairness in the elevation of service judges to high courts. One of them was a prayer to the Supreme Court to issue directions to the high courts regarding expediting the process of filling vacancies from the judicial service quota.

The Apex Court found it reasonable and highlighted that most of the time, the tenure of service judges in the high courts is only a few years. The court said that high courts should take immediate steps in recommending names for elevation prior to the occurrence of such vacancies. “We would request all the High Courts to take immediate steps in recommending the names for elevation from the service cadre prior to the occurrence of such vacancies so that there is no delay in the elevation of the Judges from the service cadre,” said the Apex Court.

The Highest Court of the land also reiterated that the present ratio (1:3) of high court judges from the district judiciary and Bar needs to be maintained.

The bench also put forward seven key concerns for the related parties to deliberate upon. Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, and the counsel for the State Government, Union of India, and the high courts were the concerned parties in the present matter.

The first concern is whether to increase the quota of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of district judge from 10% to 25%. The percentage was determined in All India Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and others. Secondly, whether the minimum experience for qualifying needs to be reduced and, if yes, by how many years?

The third question put forward by the three judge bench is whether to introduce an incentive for merit in the Civil judge cadre. The court asked if there should be a quota for meritorious candidates from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division). If the answer is yes, then what should be the percentage and minimum experience?

The fifth question is regarding the way in which the quota is calculated. The Apex Court asked whether it should depend on the cadre strength or on the number of vacancies occurring in the particular recruitment year.

The court also asked whether a suitability test from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Cadre of District Judges would be apt or not. Lastly, the parties have also been asked to ponder whether the requirement of 3 years of practice for appearing in civil judge (junior division) needs to come back.