Promotional material

All India Judges Association v Union of India was instituted in the Supreme Court way back in 1989. Since then, it has been kept open by the Court—under a continuing mandamus—to take up matters related to the architecture of the judicial services, especially recruitment and promotion. 

In September, a Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Chandran had considered submissions from amicus Siddharth Bhatnagar, who pointed out that many Civil Judges retire without ever reaching the rank of Principal District Judge, let alone being considered for High Court elevation. This stagnation, the Bench warned, is deterring “bright young lawyers” from entering the service. After receiving divergent responses from states and High Courts, the Court referred the issue to a five-judge Constitution Bench to “provide a meaningful and long-lasting solution.” 

This reference came amid a season of structural interventions. In May, the Court had brought back the three-year practice requirement for entry-level Civil Judges (Junior Division). Last month, it held that judicial officers who had completed seven years of practice are eligible for appointment as District Judges under the Bar stream. 

This week, in the matter related to reservations in promotions, the Constitution Bench heard arguments for three days before reserving judgement. At its heart is a deeply consequential question: how should seniority be determined within the District Judge cadre—across promotees, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) entrants, and direct recruits from the Bar?

Civil Judges have demanded reservation in promotion so that they don’t lose out to those who have entered the judiciary through the direct route. The stakes are also high in another respect—a sizeable number of High Court judges are drawn from the Principal District Judge pool, it being the senior-most post in the district judiciary. 

The age gap between judges at the time of entry has a knock-on effect on chances of promotion. Civil Judges often reach the rank of District Judge long years after serving in the district courts, leaving little time for a shot at the higher judiciary. Recruits from the Bar tend to arrive younger. The ‘75 promotion-25 direct’ split from All India Judges Association (2002) can ensure balance at the point of entry but it does not alter the time an officer has left to serve before retirement. 

That difference often decides who is considered for elevation. In effect, as one counsel put it during the hearings, the stream of entry serves as a “birthmark”. The 2002 split assumes that recruitment happens regularly. In practice, however, delayed and irregular recruitment cycles have led to what the petitioners call “bunching,” where several officers enter at once. 

Officers who enter through the LDCE, for instance, are at a disadvantage when their entry is “bunched” with in-service promotees for administrative convenience—in practice, there’s often a long period of time between the examination and the official promotion. In terms of seniority, it results in a situation where the judges would have been better off not taking the examination and simply waiting for promotion. 

This concern, however, does not travel evenly around the country. Some High Courts have requested the Bench to avoid any further standardisation. They highlighted that recruitment patterns, vacancy rhythms and promotion cultures vary across states. Moreover, they stress that the High Courts must retain discretion under Article 235 to manage their own judicial services. 

Reading my colleague Namrata Banerjee’s hearing reports, it is evident that the Court is no longer looking at these cases as isolated service disputes. The conversation keeps circling back to foundations. What should influence progression—trial court experience or the number of years left before retirement? Should quotas shape the pipeline? And ultimately, what model of progression will produce the most capable benches in the higher judiciary? The answers that the Court lands on could influence who becomes a judge—and how careers play out—for years to come.

This article was first featured in SCO’s Weekly newsletter. Sign up now!

SUBSCRIBE!