Delhi High Court Calls For Implementation Of Guidelines Issued In Sujata Kohli Case For Promotion Of Judicial Officers

In order to inject greater uniformity, objectivity, transparency as well as predictability in the promotions of judicial officers, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had set out a 100-marks criterion for preparing their Annual Confidential Remark (ACR grading).

A civil appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court last year, stating that the High Court had adopted a "reasonable and balanced" approach in implementing revised criteria for promotion from the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS).

On Friday, while hearing the grievance of a Judicial Magistrate, a Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, inquired on its administrative side if the guidelines have been implemented.

On being informed that the same are yet to be approved by the Full Bench, Justice Sanghi orally remarked,

"This process should be expedited. The Supreme Court has also put its seal of approval…No doubt there is no time limit for implementation in the judgment, but it's a division bench ruling. We should implement it once there is a judgment."

The development comes in a writ petition filed by a judicial magistrate, who joined Delhi Judicial Service over a decade ago, alleging violation of the guidelines laid down in Sujata Kohli case vis-à-vis his promotion.

The Petitioner had sought quashing of three ACRs stated to be invariably grading his performance as 'B' without assigning any reasons for the same, and a direction to the Respondent to reappraise his performance.

The Court noted that the Petitioner's representation to the Respondent for revision as much as upgradation of his ACR recorded for the year 2019 is concerned, and that the outcome of the same is still awaited.

"In that sense, your petition is premature," the Bench opined prima facie.

The matter is now listed for hearing on 5^th May for monitoring progress on consideration of Petitioner's representation for revision of the 2019 ACR and implementation of the Sujata Kohli judgment.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra and Advocate Tarun Chandiok appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocate Kapil Dutta appeared for Respondent on advance notice.

About Sujata Kohli case

In Sujata Kohli judgment, it was held that judicial officers should be awarded of marks/points for a maximum of 100, which shall be divided as follows:

• 20% shall be earmarked for quality of judgments;
• maximum of 25% may be awarded for the institution/disposal ratio;
• maximum of 20% may be awarded for the total number of final judgments delivered in contested matters;
• every judicial officer claiming disposal targets, based on a maximum of 10% may be awarded for timeliness, promptness in delivery of judgments, disposal of old cases, not taking leave or clubbing leave with vacations, etc.;
• balance 25% may be awarded by the appraising High Court judge/Committee on the basis of interaction/ inspection.

The High Court had directed the Registrar General to take appropriate action qua the above directions with respect to formulation of criteria for uniform grading of judicial officers, and suitably incorporate the same in the form of guidelines, for future implementation.