SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
All India Judges Association & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1022/1989, IA No. 50269/2022 – Application For Permission, IA No. 5933/2023 – Appropriate Orders/Directions, IA No. 44677/2020 – Appropriate Orders/Directions, IA No. 121642/2018 – Clarification/Direction, IA No. 91093/2022 – Clarification/Direction, IA No. 93974/2019 – Clarification/Direction, IA No. 162248/2018 – Clarification/Direction, IA No. 72900/2021 – Clarification/Direction, IA No. 162201/2018 – Clarification/Direction, IA No. 77008/2020 – Intervention Application, IA No. 162247/2018 – Intervention Application, IA No. 23985/2023 – Intervention Application, IA No. 162199/2018 – Intervention Application, IA No. 91089/2022 – Intervention/Impleadment, IA No. 40695/2021 – Intervention/Impleadment, IA No. 201893/2022 – Modification, IA No. 73015/2021 – Modification of Court Order and IA No. 77010/2020 – Permission To Appear and Argue, In Person)
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed an application seeking directions related to filling vacancies in High Courts from the judicial service quota.Finding of the Court:
The court declined to issue a direction to fill 50% of the seats from the service quota but found requests to fill vacancies from the judicial service quota reasonable, emphasizing maintaining a ratio of 1/3rd of total vacancies in a particular High Court from the cadre of District & Sessions Judges.Issues:
Filling vacancies in High Courts from the judicial service quota.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized maintaining a ratio of 1/3rd of total vacancies in a particular High Court from the cadre of District & Sessions Judges and urged immediate steps for recommending names for elevation from the service cadre.Final Decision:
The application was disposed with observations and directions regarding filling vacancies in High Courts from the judicial service quota. MAINTENANCE OF JUDICIAL SERVICE QUOTA RATIOORDER
I.A. NO.23985/2023 (ITEM NO.4)
1. When this I.A. was called out, none appeared for the High Court of Delhi.
2. Though the matter concerns a very important issue and that certain directions with regard to Delhi High Court were issued on the last date of hearing, the Delhi High Court is not being represented. We do not appreciate the attitude of the Delhi High Court neglecting such an important matter.
3. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed forthwith to inform the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi to remain present in this Court at 12.05 P.M., and the matter was passed over till 12.05 P.M.
4. When the matter is taken at 12.05 P.M., the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court as well as Smt. Kavita Jha, learned counsel are present in the Court. The Registrar General of the Delhi High Court tenders an unconditional apology for not being represented. Smt. Kavita Jha submits that since she was in an overnight part-heard and pro-bono matter, she could not remain present when the matter was called out.
5. In view of the above, we do not propose to take any further action in the matter. However, the Registry of the High Court of Delhi as also the lawyers representing it, should ensure that they are duly represented when their matters are listed before this Court.
6. The following three prayers are sought through this application:-
"i. To High Courts to fill vacancies from service judges or the bench up to 50% of their total strength of judges if a vacancy from the Bar Quota has been lying vacant for more than 6 months.
ii. To issue appropriate directions to the High Courts to fill the vacancies from the Judicial Service Quota as expeditiously as possible: and
iii. To clarify and ensure that the ratio of quota of judges from the Service Judges/Bench remain the same in any given High Court at least to 1/3rd of the total vacancies in that High Court irrespective of transfer to or from such a High Court."
7. Insofar as the first prayer i.e. a direction to fill up 50% of the seats in the High Court from the service quota is concerned, we are afraid, as to whether such a direction can be issued on judicial side.
8. We, therefore, are not inclined to consider the said prayer, leaving it open to the applicants to pursue the remedies before such forum as is permissible in law.
9. Insofar as prayer Nos.(ii) and (iii) are concerned, we find the requests to be reasonable, inasmuch as there is already a requirement to fill in 1/3rd of the total vacancies in a particular High Court from the cadre of District & Sessions Judges.
10. We would expect the High Courts to strictly maintain that ratio.
11. It is further to be noted that the tenure of the Service Judges in the High Court, most of the times, is only few years. Taking into consideration that aspect of the matter, we would request all the High Courts to take immediate steps in recommending the names for elevation from the service cadre prior to the occurrence of such vacancies, so that there is no delay in elevation of the Judges from the service cadre.
12. With the above observations and directions, the application is disposed of.
I.A. NOS.121642/2018, 5933/2023 IN I.A. NOS.121642/2018
I.A. NO.162247 & 162248/2018 &
I.A. Nos.162199 and 162201 of 2018 (ITEM NOS.1, 2 & 3)
Since the order passed by this Court stands complied with, these applications are disposed of.
I.A. NOS.201893/2022, 93974/2019 & 72900/2021, 73015/2021, 40695/2021 & 50269/2022 (ITEM NOS.5, 6 & 7)
1. We find that seven important issues arise for consideration, which are :-
(i) As to whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short, 'LDCE') for promotion to Higher Judicial Service i.e. cadre of District Judge, needs to be restored to 25% as determined by this Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247?
(ii) As to whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the aforesaid examination nee
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify its previous orders to address the peculiar situation in the High Court of Delhi and reduce the minimum qualifying ....
(1) Promotion to Higher Judicial Service [Cadre of District Judge] – It will be desirable to modify requirement to become eligible for LDCE for Higher Judicial Services and reduce minimum number of y....
The court stressed the need for administrative measures to address judicial backlog and expedite pending cases.
The High Court's administrative powers, rule-making authority, and the validity of age limits for judicial service examinations were central to the judgment.
(1) Appointments cannot be made over and above clear and anticipated vacancies which have been advertised even though Public Service Commission may have prepared a longer merit list than it was requi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.