Arguments supporting the proposal for reserving a share of PDJ posts for promotees will be heard on October 28, while those opposing it will make their submissions the next day.
Digital arrest scams under SC lens: MHA forms high-level panel, seeks time to finalise action plan. (File Photo: IANS)
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear on October 28 and 29 the issue of promotion bottlenecks and stagnation faced by entry-level judicial officers — those serving as Judicial Magistrates First Class (JMFC) or Civil Judges — and whether a percentage of Principal District Judge (PDJ) posts should be earmarked for their promotion.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will examine how seniority and advancement are determined within the higher judicial service and whether a quota-based promotion mechanism is required to provide progression opportunities for judicial officers from the lower judiciary.
Advertisement
Arguments supporting the proposal for reserving a share of PDJ posts for promotees will be heard on October 28, while those opposing it will make their submissions the next day. Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Manu Krishnan have been designated as nodal counsels to coordinate written submissions for both sides.
Advertisement
The reference to the Constitution Bench follows the October 7 order in the All-India Judges Association case, where the Court took note of the limited promotional avenues for judicial officers entering the judiciary at the JMFC or Civil Judge level. Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar had earlier suggested setting aside a portion of PDJ posts for promotees, noting that many such officers never reach senior positions before retirement.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta raised concerns over the scope and verification of the issue and whether stagnation was a widespread issue. CJI Gavai said that it is possible to ascertain the status from the data furnished by the High Courts.
The matter traces back to September 17, 2025, when Bhatnagar flagged an “anomalous situation” across states — that Civil Judges rarely rise to become Principal District Judges, let alone High Court judges — discouraging young talent from joining the judiciary. The Court subsequently sought responses from all States, Union Territories, and High Courts, revealing divergent positions: while some acknowledged stagnation, others denied such disparity.
Observing that officers recruited as Civil Judges gain invaluable trial experience but face structural limitations, the apex court said that a balance must be maintained between promotees and direct recruits, and referred the issue to a Constitution Bench to devise a long-term solution ensuring fairness, efficiency, and merit in judicial progression.
Advertisement
