Reservations in Principal District Judge post | Constitution Bench to begin arguments on 28 October

Today, a five-judge Constitution Bench passed directions in a case concerning whether a portion of posts in the Principal District Judges cadre can be reserved for officers promoted from the Civil Judge or Judicial Magistrate level. The Bench consisted of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K.V. Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi.

The case was referred to a larger bench on 7 October 2025 by a Division Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran.

The Order had observed that many officers who enter the service as Civil Judges rarely reach the post of a Principal District Judge. This has caused stagnation, specifically for young judicial officers. At that time, it was argued that a Civil Judge “seldom make it to the post of a Principal District Judge” and in “rarest of the rare cases” reach the level of a High Court judge. District Judges who were directly recruited opposed any intervention by the Court in this matter.

The Bench had noted that “every judicial officer, be it one who was initially recruited as Civil Judge or one who was directly recruited as a District Judge, has an aspiration to reach at least up to the position of a High Court Judge.”

Court to begin arguments after Diwali break

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Bhatnagar, appearing as the amicus curiae, informed the Bench that there had been eight intervention applications. Half of these supported the proposal to reserve a certain percentage of posts. Bhatnagar submitted that such a measure would help correct the imbalance between direct recruits and service officers.

Justice Kant observed that the data outlining the composition of the Higher Judicial Service “will not be difficult to collect” as all High Courts were impleaded in the case. Senior Advocate Ajay Hansaria, appearing for the Delhi High Court, pointed out an instance where the post of a Principal District Judge is filled by fewer directly recruited judges as compared to promoted judges. “Out of thirteen Principal District Judges, only two are direct recruits and eleven are promoted,” he argued. CJI Gavai remarked that any general principle framed by the Court would have to take into account these variations. Notably, the 7 October Order had noted that the post of the Principal District Judge has very few Civil Judges appointed through promotion.

Senior Advocate R. Basant questioned the maintainability of the Reference and argued that previous Constitution Bench decisions there cannot be any discrimination in two sources of recruitment for an integrated cadre. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought clarification on whether the reference extended to promotion or elevation to High Courts. CJI Gavai replied that appointments to the High Court “cannot be regarded as promotion” and therefore fell outside the scope of the present issue.

Justice Bagchi explained the structure of the District Judge cadre, stating that it comprises the District Judge (Entry Level), (Senior Level) and (Selection Grade). He noted that an entry-level District Judge is not eligible to be considered for appointment as Principal District Judge until upgraded to the selection grade. “The zone of movement,” he observed, “is not on seniority alone but on merit-cum-seniority. If five posts fall vacant, there must be a zone of consideration of fifteen. The question is whether a preferential quota should be given to promotees from the base level within that zone.”

The Bench directed the amicus to prepare a compilation of High Court service rules and stated that the principal issue would be “what is the qualification criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of higher services,” along with related questions.

The matter will be heard on 28 and 29 October, with supporting parties to argue on the first day and opposing parties on the next. Written submissions are to be filed by 27 October. Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Manu Krishnan were appointed as nodal counsel for the respective sides.