More States, High Courts Object Centralised Selection For Lower Judiciary [Read Responses From HCs]

After facing objections from some states and high courts on the concept of Centralised Selection Mechanism [CSM) for lower judiciary, the Supreme Court today deferred the hearing of a suo moto Public Interest Litigation for two weeks.

This means, the matter will be heard afresh as the present Chief Justice of India (CJI) J S Khehar, who is heading a three judge bench, will retire on August 27 and the new CJI has to constitute a new bench for fresh hearing of the case.

The court also asked Amicus Curiae senior Advocate Arvind Datar to prepare a second concept note on the issue in two weeks.

The high courts of Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Sikkim, Assam, J&K, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh & Telangana and concerned states opposed the Centralised Selection Mechanism for lower judiciary on various grounds, including reservation, preservation of language and also due to the federal structure the states have the power to make the selection procedure.

During the hearing today Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, assisted by Sneha Kalita standing counsel for Gauhati high court  appearing on behalf of Gauhati High Court and State of Assam submitted that the Central Selection Mechanism violates constitutional scheme of federalism within the judiciary.

Under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution, the High Court alone is competent to make selection and consequential recommendation for the post of District Judges by way of direct appointment. In the alternative, it was submitted that Central Selection Committee should have 5 zones instead of 4 zones – the 5th zone should be North East. The interview for the final must be conducted by the respective High Court.

Appearing for Chhatisgarh, Advocate General Jugal Kishore Gilda opposed the central mechanism on various grounds. He raised the issue of language as Hindi is the prime language for most of the judicial officers and majority of them belong to Scheduled Tribe. It would be difficult for them to get the reservation elsewhere, Gilda submitted.

He also submitted the whole state is affected by the naxalites and the judicial officers are from outside the state would not prefer their posting in the naxal belt.

Appearing for Delhi High Court, senior advocate Raj Ramachandran submitted that a full court meeting of high court was convened on August 21 and prepared a list of suggestions including the Central Selection Committee (CSC) should be broad based. Its members should be from among the sitting judges of all high courts.

The timeline proposed in the concept note are unrealistic and may not be workable…,” the affidavit submitted by the Delhi High Court said.

The Amicus Datar in his concept note has proposed for a centralised examination- the District Judges Recruitment Examination (DJURE) which will help to fulfill the large number of vacancies.

Gauhati High Court’s Objections

 Gauhati High Court submitted that appointment for the post of District Judge in direct recruitment quota may be continued and the Central Selection Mechanism suggested by the Learned Amicus may not be applied in the States under the jurisdiction of the High Couft.

“As per Article 312 of the Constitution, after amendment by the Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act 1976, an All India Judicial Service can be constituted. However, such service can be constituted only by the Parliament by making a law which is approved by the Council of States by majority of not less than 2/3'd members present and voting. No such law has been made by the Parliament unlike All India Services Act,1951 for civil service under the Union and the States”.

 It is also stated that the present suo motu proceedings have been initiated by Supreme Court based on letter of Government of India dated 28.04.2017, which in turn was with reference to the discussion held in the Supreme Court during a meeting by the Arrears Committee of this Hon'ble Court comprising of Hon,ble Mr. Justice A.K. Goel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar wherein two Hon,ble judges of Delhi High Court, officers of Government of India and two senior advocates were present.

“No other High Court or State Government representative was present during the said meeting. It is submitted that the Government of India before writing the aforesaid letter dated 28.04.20U to the Secretary General of this Hon,ble Court ought to have obtained views of various High courts”.