Recently, in a rare and candid exchange reflecting long-standing friction between the higher judiciary’s constitutional jurisdictions, the Allahabad High Court has urged the Supreme Court to “adopt a hands-off approach” concerning the framing of service rules for the district judiciary.
Appearing before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Allahabad High Court, asserted that the Apex Court’s intervention in matters relating to recruitment, promotion, and service conditions of state judicial officers infringes upon the constitutional powers vested in the High Courts under Article 227(1) of the Constitution.
“The SC should leave it to the HCs to chalk out the framework for ensuring adequate promotional avenues to career judicial officers and direct recruit district judges. Article 227(1) gives HCs superintendence over district judiciary,” Senior Advocate submitted.
The observation came during proceedings concerning the proposed establishment of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) and the question of uniformity in service rules governing promotions to the post of District Judge. The Bench, also comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, is examining whether the Supreme Court should issue general guidelines to harmonize service structures across states.
Justice Surya Kant, who is in line to become the next Chief Justice of India, clarified the intent of the proceedings, observing that, “The purpose of present proceedings is not to usurp the powers of HCs in relation to district judiciary. We are considering whether a general guideline is needed to bring in some uniformity in promotions to the post of district judge.”
CJI Gavai echoed a similar sentiment, remarking that “We do not even remotely intend to take away powers of the HCs,” but queried why the Allahabad High Court appeared “averse to a uniform service rule for judicial officers” and invited suggestions from the counsel.
However, Senior Advocate resisted the idea of any centralized rule-making, maintaining that “service conditions vary from state to state, and HC is in the best position to consider these aspects while framing service rules.” He contended that the Supreme Court’s role should be limited to exceptional circumstances, “where the HC is unable to manage the affairs of the subordinate judiciary or where the administration of justice in district courts has broken down.”
The controversy traces back to 2017, when the Apex Court had, in principle, approved a concept paper advocating that it conduct the recruitment test for direct appointment of District Judges from the Bar. That proposal was subsequently stalled following opposition from several High Courts.
The present debate also revisits the ratio governing the modes of appointment to the post of District Judge, initially fixed at 50:25:25 (promotion, limited competitive examination, and direct recruitment) in 2002, altered to 65:25:10 in 2010, and later reverted by the Top Court to the earlier ratio.
Counsel appearing for other High Courts expressed similar reservations. Senior advocate Maninder Acharya, representing the Punjab and Haryana High Court, submitted that “the present system is working well” in those states, opposing any judicially imposed quota. Advocates representing direct-recruit district judges from Kerala, Bihar, and Delhi also argued against any alteration to the existing promotional mechanism.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
