© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, began hearing arguments on Tuesday (October 28) to determine “the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services.”
At stake is the system that governs promotions for judges who enter the district judge cadre through two different routes: those promoted from the lower judiciary and those directly recruited from the Bar. The issue affecting career progression stems from the significant age difference between the two streams at the time of entry into the District Judge cadre: direct recruits often join in their mid-30s, while promotees reach the same post in their mid-40s after years of service in lower courts. Since seniority is largely decided by the date of entry (often through a 40-point roster system), the promotee judges tend to fall behind in the gradation list that determines eligibility for further promotion.
At the heart of the issue is whether seniority lists and promotion procedures have produced indirect discrimination against one group. The court’s earlier observations towards a “proper balance ” suggest the bench may look for a mechanism that ensures parity without disrupting existing structures.
District judges enter the higher judicial service in two ways: either through promotion from lower ranks or by direct recruitment from the bar. While promotees form nearly three-fourths of the cadre, direct recruits often rise faster.
The problem, the bench observed earlier this month, is that directly recruited district judges are usually younger when they join, often in their mid-30s, while promotees typically reach the same level around their mid-40s after years of lower court service. Because seniority is largely decided by the date of entry, promotee judges tend to fall behind in the gradation list that determines eligibility for further promotion.
As a result, by the time promotee judges reach senior positions, many are nearing retirement. The amicus curiae in the case, senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, has described this as an “unintended structural disadvantage” that effectively sidelines the majority of the judicial service.
The data shared by several High Courts in their affidavits shows a clear gap between judges who are promoted through the ranks and those who enter service directly from the Bar.
In Bihar, the Patna High Court reported that out of 91 judges serving as Principal District and Sessions Judges, 86 are direct recruits while only five are promotees. The court also said that once these five officers retire, all senior district judges in the state will be direct recruits. This is even though promotees make up most of the district judge cadre.
In Uttar Pradesh, of 70 officers working as District and Sessions Judges, 58 are direct recruits and 12 are promotees. Together, these two states account for some of the largest judicial cadres in the country. Their data shows that direct recruits tend to rise faster to senior posts than those who start as civil judges and move up through promotions.
The post of Principal District and Sessions Judge is often the stepping stone to the High Court bench under Article 217(2) of the Constitution. Officers who enter service through promotion often reach this level close to retirement, leaving little time for consideration for elevation.
Data from other High Courts also reflects this pattern. The Bombay High Court said that since 2020, 19 district judges have been elevated to the High Court, including 16 direct recruits and 3 promotees. The Kerala High Court reported that out of 42 sitting judges, 15 were elevated from the district judiciary, including 10 direct recruits and 5 promotees. Between 2020-2025, around nine officers were appointed as judges in the High Court, each by promotion and direct recruitment.
In Rajasthan, of the 13 judges drawn from the judicial service, 12 are promotees and one is a direct recruit transferred from Telangana. Karnataka listed 14 judges who began as munsiffs and were elevated to the High Court between 2015 and 2025. Meghalaya, which established a High Court in 2013, said no officer who began as a civil judge has yet been elevated.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, noting that Promotee Officers are often deprived of the opportunity to reach the High Court level, proactively recommended that “50% of the appointments to the High Court from in-service officers should be drawn from the category of District Judges who were initially appointed in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division), ensuring adequate representation.”
Judges elevated from the service side, that is, those who started their careers as civil judges, form one of the two main streams of appointments to the higher judiciary, the other being lawyers elevated directly from the Bar. Whether a judicial officer becomes eligible for elevation depends on when they reach the district judge level, because only those with a certain minimum length of service in that post can be considered.
When promotions are delayed, officers spend most of their careers in the lower judiciary and retire before they can be considered for elevation. In effect, the higher judiciary loses out on decades of trial-court experience, the kind of experience that shapes a judge’s understanding of evidence, procedure, and everyday law.
This imbalance, the amicus has argued, also affects morale within the judiciary. If promotions appear skewed or unreachable, it could discourage talented lawyers from joining at the entry level and disincentivise civil judges who spend years in trial courts.
The debate arises from the All India Judges Association case, in which the Supreme Court undertook to standardise the service structure and conditions of the subordinate judiciary. In 2002, the court fixed the recruitment ratio for the Higher Judicial Service at 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar.
Within the 75% promotional quota, half the posts were to be filled on the principle of merit-cum-seniority after a suitability test, and the remaining 25% through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), a fast-track route for civil judges.
The court also approved a 40-point roster system, drawn from its earlier ruling in R.K. Sabarwal v. State of Punjab (1995), to ensure that seniority would not depend purely on when someone joined but on their roster slot. This was meant to create a fair sequence of promotion opportunities between the two sources of recruitment.
However, the amicus application notes that many High Courts either did not adopt this roster properly or applied it inconsistently, leading to growing disparities in promotions and seniority. The roster system intended to fix seniority using roster points. When officers from various streams of recruitment (promotion/ LDCE/ direct recruitment) share the same date of appointment, the roster points are applied to determine their inter-se seniority.
Since the roster establishes a sequential seniority based on roster slot, the younger Direct Recruits often gain positions in the gradation list that grant them a longer tenure in the cadre. The effective result of the 40-point roster system is that Promotee Judges, due to their higher entry age, frequently superannuate before being considered for senior posts like Principal District Judge. Once Promotee Judges retire, the Direct Recruit Judges who are younger get clubbed together at the senior-most positions in the Seniority/Gradation List. This disproportionate representation of Direct Recruits at the top of the seniority list severely impacts the career progression and chances of elevation for Promotee Judges.
For example, in its affidavit, Allahabad HC stated that out of 100 senior-most officers, 81 were Direct Recruits, and the senior-most Promotee Judge featured at Serial No. 29 in the seniority list, meaning posts at Serial Nos 1 to 28 were occupied by Direct Recruits.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court revisited the 2002 framework, restoring and clarifying several provisions that had fallen out of practice. The court reaffirmed that the LDCE quota should form 25% of the promotional intake, not the 10% many states had reduced it to. It also lowered the qualifying service for eligibility from five years to three years, allowing faster progression for meritorious officers.
Importantly, the court restored the earlier requirement that candidates for entry-level civil judge posts must have at least three years of legal practice, noting that High Courts had reported concerns about inexperienced recruits lacking courtroom maturity.
The court also directed that all promotion quotas should be computed with reference to total sanctioned cadre strength, not current vacancies, a crucial step to prevent distortions in quota application.
The outcome will have implications beyond service rules. The district judiciary is the foundation of India’s justice system. Ensuring that its officers have fair and predictable career paths affects not only institutional morale but also the diversity of experience at the High Court and Supreme Court levels.
Many judges who shaped constitutional and criminal law began their careers in the district judiciary. According to public profiles on the Supreme Court’s website, around eight judges elevated since 1990 began their careers in the district judiciary. More recently, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who started as a judge in the City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in 1995, represents this stream of appointments from the subordinate judiciary all the way to the Supreme Court. The route from the trial bench to the constitutional bench depends, in practice, on how promotion systems work.
