In 2024, the Supreme Court passed notable orders and made key observations on multiple issues related to the working of the District Judiciary and Judicial Officers. Here is a relook of the important developments :High Court Chief Justice Cannot Individually Reconsider Judges' Appointment, Must Be Collectively Done By Collegium : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by...
In 2024, the Supreme Court passed notable orders and made key observations on multiple issues related to the working of the District Judiciary and Judicial Officers. Here is a relook of the important developments :
The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by two senior district judges from Himachal Pradesh who contended that the Himachal Pradesh High Court collegium ignored their merit and seniority while recommending names for elevation to the High Court.
The Court directed the collegium of Himachal Pradesh High Court to reconsider the names of District Judges Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra for elevation as judges of the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of a High Court cannot individually reconsider a recommendation.
The Court reiterated that the decision has to be taken collectively by the Collegium (comprising CJ and two senior judges) after deliberations.
"The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not the prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and participatory process involving all Collegium members.The underlying principle is that the process of appointment of judges must reflect the collective wisdom that draws from diverse perspectives. Such a process ensures that principles of transparency and accountability are maintained," observed the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Case Title – Chirag Bhanu Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
'Retired District Judges Getting Pension Of Only Rs 19-20K, How Do They Survive? : Supreme Court Seeks AG's Assistance
The Supreme Court while hearing the matter of the pension scheme for judicial officers, flagged concerns on the plight of the retired district judicial officers who were getting inadequate financial support through the present pension policies. The Court urged the Union to find a 'Just Solution' for the officers who have substantially contributed to the cause of Justice
The CJI DY Chandrachud brought attention to the dire financial conditions faced by retired district judges, emphasizing that they were receiving pensions as low as Rs 19,000-20,000 after years of dedicated service. He pointed out the challenges of transitioning to other avenues at an age when they are physically unable to engage in active legal practice
Case Details : All India Judges Association Vs. Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 001022 / 1989
'Some Retire From District Judiciary With A Monthly Pension Of Only Rs.15K' : Supreme Court Expresses Concerns To Union
The Supreme Court flagged concerns over the issue of meagre retirement pensions given to the District Judges.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the All India Judges Association Case relating to the implementation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani requested for time to address the issue regarding TDS deduction on the allowances paid to judicial officers. While agreeing to defer the hearing, the Chief Justice shared some thoughts regarding the meagre pension of judicial officers.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015
District Judges Selection | Supreme Court Faults Jharkhand HC For Changing Criteria Midway, Directs To Appoint 7 Candidates
The Supreme Court observed that after the performance of individual candidates is assessed, then it would be impermissible for the High Court to alter the selection criteria for the appointment of District Judiciary Judges.
The Bench Comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar directed the High Court of Jharkhand to consider the appointment of seven persons qualified to be appointed in a 'District Judge Cadre' Service who were denied appointment due to a "midway change of the Rule" by the High Court.
Case Details: Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. Versus The High Court Of Jharkhand & Anr. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 753/2023
The Supreme Court in its recent judgement concerning the promotion of Judicial Officers by the Gujarat High Court, observed a few suggestions to enhance the 'suitability test' employed by the High Court for promoting judicial officers on the basis of 'Merit-cum-Seniority'. On May 17, the Court upheld the recommendations made by the High Court of Gujarat in 2023 for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle.
The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its ruling explained the concept of 'merit-cum-seniority' & 'suitability test' as applicable under Rule 5 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005. Rule 5 requires that the 65% recruitment to the District Judge cadre be done through promotions amongst the Senior Civil Judges on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
Case Title : Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 432 of 2023
District Judge Aspirant To Get Appointment As Supreme Court Quashes HC's Interview Cut-Off Criteria As Contrary To Rules
After a legal battle of nine years, a District Judge aspirant got relief as the Supreme Court recently held him eligible for appointment after invalidating the decision of the Manipur High Court to prescribe minimum cut-off marks for interview.
The petitioner, Salam Samarjeet Singh, appeared for the written test for the District Judge (Entry Level) in the Manipur Judicial Service Grade-I in July 2013. He was successful in the written examination having scored 52.8% marks. Just before the interview test, the Full Court of the Manipur High Court on 12.01.2015 decided to fix 40% as the cut-off for the viva-voce examination. The petitioner was unsuccessful in the interview as he secured only 18.8 marks out of the total 50 marks in the interview segment.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti delivered its judgment on August 22 (uploaded on August 31) upholding the petitioner's claim. The bench noted that the relevant statutory rule governing the recruitment of District Judges, the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005, did not provide for a separate cut-off for interview. Hence, such a requirement could not have been introduced through a Full Court resolution without amending the rules. Also, the requirement of a separate cut-off for the interview was not specified in the advertisement and was introduced only after the written test, that too without intimating the candidates.
Case Title : Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal | WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.294/2015
No Government Servant Can Claim Promotion As Their Right : Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that government employees cannot demand promotion as a matter of right and that the Court's intervention in promotion policies should only be limited when there is a violation of the equality principle under Article 16 of the Constitution.
On May 17, the Court upheld the recommendations made by the High Court of Gujarat in 2023 for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle. In ruling so, it was observed that since the Constitution doesn't prescribe a criterion for promotions, the government employees cannot expect promotions as their intrinsic right. The Court noted that policy of promotions is the main domain of the legislature or executive with a limited scope for judicial review.
Case Title : Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 432 of 2023
Avoid Personal Criticism Of Judicial Officers : Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Remarks Against Sessions Judge
While expunging from a judgment of the Delhi High Court certain adverse remarks made against a Sessions Judge, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for restraint on the part of superior courts while commenting on judicial officers.
While the superior courts, in the exercise of their appellate/revisional powers, can set aside the orders passed by the lower courts, they should avoid personal comments against the judicial officers. Though strong language can be used to criticise erroneous orders, such criticism should be in the context of the impugned order and not on the personal conduct of the judge, the Supreme Court cautioned.
Case : Sonu Agnihotri v.Chandra Shekhar and others | Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 910
Supreme Court Criticises Delhi HC's Directions To Judicial Officers Against Censuring Police Officers
The Supreme Court criticized the Delhi High Court's Rules for “Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases”, which state that it is “undesirable for courts to censure police officers unless strictly relevant to the case”. The Court asserted that the HC cannot pass directions dictating the judicial officers on how to write judgments.
Justice Abhay Oka emphasized, “What Delhi High Court has done is – written directions in what manner judges should deliver judgements. Teaching the judges, guiding them in judicial academy is different from writing down that you should not do this, you should not do that. It is the discretion of the court.” He added that such directions cannot be passed either in judicial or administrative side.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a judicial officer's appeal against the Delhi HC's remarks on his observations regarding the conduct of two police officers in a theft case.
Case Title – Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar Crl.A. No. 388-389/2024
Supreme Court Shocked At DDA Appointing Judicial Officers As Its Legal Advisors, Says It Violates Judicial Independence
The Supreme Court expressed shock at the practice of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) appointing in-service Judicial Officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service as its legal advisors.
Observing that such a practice violated judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court asked the DDA to discontinue it. The Court also urged the Delhi High Court to look into the matter for appropriate action.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo motu contempt case initiated against DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda for the felling of trees in Delhi Ridge Forest violating Supreme Court's orders.While perusing the affidavit of the DDA Vice Chairman, the bench noticed this "shocking practice" followed by the DDA to appoint in-service judicial officers as legal advisors.
Case Detailed : Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024
District Judges 65% Quota | 'Merit-cum-Seniority' Doesn't Mean Comparative Merit : Supreme Court Upholds Gujarat HC Promotions Of Judicial Officers
The Supreme Court upheld the recommendations made by the High Court of Gujarat in 2023 for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle.
The judgment explained the scope of the principle of "merit cum seniority". Justice Pardiwala, reading out the operative portion of the judgment, stated :
"What has been conveyed by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the All India Judges Association case is that the suitability of each candidate should be tested on their own merit. The said decision does not speak about comparative merit for the 65% promotional quota. In other words, what is stipulated is the determination of the suitability of candidates and assessment of their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case law.”
Case Title : Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 432 of 2023
Judicial Officers' Pay : Supreme Court Directs States To Clear SNJPC Arrears By Feb 29; Asks HCs To Set Up Committees To Oversee
The Supreme Court has directed the State Governments to pay the arrears to judges in terms of the payscales enhanced as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) by February 29, 2024.
The judgment also contains directions to the High Courts to set up a Committee to oversee the implementation of the SNJPC recommendations. It will be known as the 'Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary' (CSCDJ). The Committee would consist of two judges of the High Court, the Law Secretary of the State Government, and the Registrar General of the High Court. The nodal officer appointed would be a retired judicial officer and the committee shall be headed by the senior most judge as nominated by the Chief Justice.
Case Title: All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015
Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Against Dismissal Of 2 Women Judicial Officers By Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Supreme Court reserved judgment in the case concerning the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to terminate two lady judicial officers from service.
In this case, six judicial officers were simultaneously terminated from service. On the direction of the Court, a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh Court agreed to reinstate 4 female judicial officers. Therefore, 2 lady officers were before the Court seeking a remedy against termination.
Case Details: Aditi Kumar Sharma V State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024 & Sarita Choudhary V. High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 142/2024 & In Re: Termination Of Civil Judge, Class-Ii (Jr. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service., Smw(C) No. 2/2023
'If Men Had Menstruation, They'll Know' : Supreme Court Questions MP HC Over Dismissal Of Lady Judge Following Miscarriage
The Supreme Court expressed strong remarks against the criteria set by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in assessing the performance of lady judicial officers in which the High Court ignored to accommodate the mental and physical ailment suffered by the judge due to miscarriage.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh, while hearing a suo moto case against two lady judicial officers who were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was informed that one of the lady officers, has consistently performed poorly. Her disposal rate of cases was cited as an example wherein it was pointed out that she had only disposed of two civil suits in a year.
When Justice Nagarathna went through the record, she found that the officer had suffered a miscarriage and was not able to perform due to her bad mental health. On this, Justice Nagarathna remarked: "I hope such criteria is also imposed on male judges. I have no hesitation in saying this. The lady, she has got pregnant and she had miscarriage! The mental and physical ailment of a lady who has undergone a miscarriage. What is this? I wish men have menstruation. Then they will know what it is. We are sorry. This is a High Court dealing with a woman judicial officer. Black and white she has written here that due to miscarriage. Have the same kind of criteria for the male judges!
Case Details: Aditi Kumar Sharma V State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 233/2024
Requirement That Judicial Officers Must Be Adept At Local Language Is Valid : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court approved the requirements in various States that persons seeking appointment as judicial officers should be conversant with the local language.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed a petition challenging the condition imposed by the Public Service Commissions of the States of Punjab, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Odisha.
The bench observed that the requirement that a person seeking appointment as a judicial officer must be adept in the local language is "valid". The bench pointed out that judicial officers once appointed have to deal with witnesses and evidence in the local language.
Case Title : The Legal Attorneys And Barristers Law Firm Vs. Union Of India Diary No. - 53141/2023
Unfortunate That Many Lady Judicial Officers Have No Private Washrooms : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court heard the petition seeking sanitised toilets for men, women, specially-abled persons and transgender persons in Court premises and tribunals across the country.
The Court asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, for Union, if all lady judicial officers have access to private washrooms in the High Courts where they are working. When Bhati stated that this was not covered in the affidavit and therefore no data on it, Justice Pardiwala responded: "Unfortunately, no [it has not been ensured that all lady officers have access to private washrooms]."
Case Details: Rajeeb Kalita V Union Of India And Ors.W.P.(C) No. 538/2023
High Court Judges Can't Be Discriminated Based On Source Of Appointment, All Entitled To Same Service Benefits: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that High Court Judges elevated from the district judiciary would be entitled to service conditions at par with those judges appointed from the bar and that the Constitution does not differentiate between the High Court Judges on the basis of the source of their recruitment.
The bench comprising the Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the batch of matters relating to the pending release of salaries of Patna High Court Judges. The Court observed that no provision for differential treatment is meted out under Article 216 which provides that "Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint".
The Court clarified that once appointed to the High Court, every judge ranks at par. The institution of the High Court comprises the totality of the CJ and all other judges appointed to the Court. Once appointed, no distinction can be made for the salaries and other allowances. It was stressed that all High Court Judges formed a single unified 'homogenous class'.
Case Title: Justice Shailendra Singh And Ors. v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 232/2023 and connected matters
Retired HC Judges Can't Be Discriminated Regarding Pension Based On Whether They're Elevated From Service Or Bar : Supreme Court
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held there cannot be any discrimination between the retired High Court judges, depending on their source of elevation (whether from the bar or the District Judiciary), while computing their pensionary benefits.
The Court held that held that the pensionary entitlement of a retired High Court judge, who is elevated from the District Judiciary, must be computed by adding the service as a District Judiciary member along with the service as a High Court judge. Such pension must be computed on the basis of the last drawn salary as a judge of the High Court judge.
Case details : Union Of India Ministry Of Law Justice Vs. Justice (Retd.) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) | Slp(C) No. 007246 - / 2019
A higher court cannot seek an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order, stated the Supreme Court, while expugning the adverse remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a District & Sessions Judge.
The explanation can be sought only on the administrative side, the Supreme Court stated.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a petition filed by a judicial officer who was aggrieved by certain adverse observations made by the Rajasthan High Court against him.
Case : Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court has expressed disapproval of the directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court that the Trial Courts should incorporate in a tabular chart the criminal antecedents of the accused while deciding bail applications. The Court observed that High Cours cannot direct the Trial Courts to write bail orders in a particular manner.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih made this pertinent observation while deciding an appeal filed by a District and Sessions Judge against certain adverse remarks made by the High Court against him.
Case : Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan
Other Supreme Court Annual Round-up stories can be read here.