In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has leveled the playing field for promotions and selections to the rank of district judge, resolving a 75-year-old constitutional ambiguity that has long been a source of contention within the judicial service. The ruling addresses the disparity in career progression between judicial service officers and advocates seeking to become district judges.
The five-judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices M.M. Sundresh, Arvind Kumar, S.C. Sharma, and K.V. Chandran, interpreted Article 233 of the Constitution to establish a uniform criterion of seven years of experience for both trial judges and advocates competing for district judge positions. The court's decision means that a person with a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or judicial officer is eligible for consideration and appointment as a district judge or additional district judge under Article 233 of the Constitution.
This ruling addresses a long-standing grievance among judicial service officers, who often spend 15 to 20 years working their way up to district judge positions through promotions. Previously, advocates with only seven years of experience could directly become district judges, potentially leaving career judicial officers behind in terms of career advancement. The Supreme Court's decision aims to rectify this imbalance and ensure a more equitable selection process.
The court rejected arguments that allowing younger trial judges with seven years of combined experience to compete for these positions would unfairly allow them to "leapfrog" over more senior judicial officers who preferred to advance through the traditional promotion channels. The ruling emphasized that the goal is to promote excellence and not procedural rigidity. The Supreme Court referenced the Shetty Commission recommendations, stating that if meritorious young individuals should be introduced, there is no reason to exclude deserving serving judges. The court agreed with the Commission's view that such inclusion would promote efficiency and improve discipline within the judicial service, as it allows high courts to assess the relative merits of candidates from both streams.
The decision is expected to spur reform within the district judiciary and ensure a level playing field, allowing serving judges to apply under the "Bar quota" if they possess at least seven years of combined experience as a judicial officer and advocate. This will encourage high courts to assess candidates based on merit, promoting a more efficient and disciplined judicial service.
