SC refers judicial officers’ career stagnation issue to Constitution bench
New Delhi, Oct 7: The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred the long-pending issue of career stagnation among lower judiciary officers to…
New Delhi, Oct 7: The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred the long-pending issue of career stagnation among lower judiciary officers to a five-judge Constitution Bench, seeking a comprehensive and lasting solution to the problem.
The matter was taken up while hearing a plea filed by the All India Judges Association concerning service conditions, pay scales, and career advancement of judicial officers.
Chief Justice B R Gavai, heading the bench with Justice K Vinod Chandran, said the issue required detailed examination as several high courts and state governments had expressed divergent opinions on the limited promotional avenues available to officers who begin their careers at the entry level.
Also Read- ED raids fake call centres in Delhi-NCR
The court noted the anomalous situation prevailing in several states, where officers who start as Judicial Magistrate First Class or Civil Judge (Junior Division) often retire without ever reaching the post of Principal District Judge or being considered for elevation to the High Court.
Chief Justice Gavai observed that such stagnation leads to frustration among young officers who join the judiciary in their mid-twenties but retire as Additional District Judges, stressing the need for a balanced approach to ensure fairness and efficiency in the judicial system.
Senior advocate R Basant, however, opposed the proposal to alter the promotion structure, arguing that it could unfairly disadvantage meritorious candidates seeking direct recruitment as district judges.
Also Read- Light to moderate rain forecast in Jharkhand till Oct 10
The CJI emphasised that the ultimate goal is to enhance the efficiency of the justice delivery system and referred to an instance shared by Justice M M Sundresh about a law clerk who left judicial service within two years due to lack of promotion prospects.
Concluding that a permanent resolution was essential, the bench directed that the matter be placed before a five-judge Constitution Bench for detailed consideration.
