District Judiciary Facing Problem Of Mediocrity, Need To Ensure There're Good People : CJI DY Chandrachud

The district judiciary is facing a great problem of mediocrity, said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Tuesday (January 16). Stressing that there should be proper methods which will ensure that good people are there in the judiciary, the CJI expressed prima facie approval of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's mandate that judicial officers should secure a minimum of 50% marks in the interview for promotion as District Judges.  

"The one great problem which faces the district judiciary is mediocrity. And if we do not do this... all that happens is the same...this will get replicated in the High Courts- appoint everybody by seniority… you have to ensure that there are good people, that there is incentive to do well and that incentive to do well must also percolate in the appointments to the High Court… when will the judiciary change? …”, CJI orally remarked.

The bench, also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was hearing a set of special leave petitions filed against the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court last month directing the Haryana Government to accept the recommendations of the High Court on appointing 13 judicial officers as additional district and session judges.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for some petitioners, contended that the presiding judge of the bench which passed the judgment had dealt with the matter of appointments in his administrative capacity as well. Therefore, the judge ought to have recused from hearing the matter on the judicial side, Rohatgi submitted. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, also supported this contention, saying that the judge should have recused voluntarily even without waiting for anyone to make a request.

The legal issue raised in the case was whether the High Court could have prescribed a cut-off of 50% in the viva voce without amending the rules in consultation with the State Government. The bench was told by Senior Advocate PS Patwalia that this cut-off was made applicable only in the 65% promotion quota and not for direct recruitment or recruitment through limited departmental competitive examination.

During the hearing, CJI remarked that there are instances of candidates performing very poorly in the interview despite good performance in the written exam.

“People who otherwise tend to fare well in the written(exam), you will find otherwise in the interview. When you interview them, they are nowhere. Somebody who gets 70/75 or 65/75 in written gets 5/25 in the interview…you start interviewing and realise that the person knows nothing...", CJI said.

Patwalia said that his client has more than 70(out of 75) in the written exam and 12 (out of 25) in the interview and he was excluded only by half mark. He placed reliance on the Leela Dhar judgment which held that greater emphasis must be given to interviews while taking freshers. He stressed that the candidates are not freshers and have been in service for long and they are competing for the promotion quota.

The petitioners, also represented by Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Rakesh Dwivedi, argued that none of the participating candidates knew about this mandate as it was never published.

SG Tushar Mehta, informing the bench that the State has also filed a separate petition challenging the High Court direction, submitted that the High Court could not have passed a direction to the Governor to appoint certain persons. Referring to the judgment in the case of Lakshmi Kutty and Others, the SG said that there was a specific law laid down that it is impermissible for the High Court to issue a mandamus to the Governor to make an appointment in a particular way. He argued that without amending the rules in consultation with the State Government, the High Court could not have prescribed the separate cut-off through an administrative resolution.

Stand of the High Court

Senior Advocate Nidesh Gupta, for the High Court, submitted the test for the promotion quota was introduced as per the Supreme Court's judgment in the All India Judges Association case. Since 2013, there has been a rule that there should be 50% minimum marks in the aggregate of the marks of the written test and the interview. In 2021, a decision was taken by the Full Court for 50% minimum in the viva voce as well and this was conveyed to the State Government. Even if it is assumed that the candidates were not aware of this rule, Gupta contended that there is no allegation of bias in the selection process. Also, several judgements of the Supreme Court have consistently said that interview is the best way of assessing the suitability of the candidates. Following this line of judgment, the rule was introduced. Gupta submitted that the candidates are expected to give their best in the interview. It is not that had they known about their rule beforehand, they would have fared differently.

"It is not that if they knew it in advance, it would make a difference", CJI supplemented the submission of Gupta.

Gupta further contended that the High Court was filling in the gaps of the rules and no amendment to the rules was necessary. Consultation with the State Government is not needed for prescribing the selection criteria, he added. He pointed out that the State of Punjab has accepted this rule, following which the pendency rates have gone down.

At this point, CJI turned to the petitioners' side and side : 

"All of you participated. The fact of the matter is this. That the original policy of 2013 is a policy. Everybody accepted the fact that the High Court is legitimately entitled to assert that you must get 50% aggregate in the written plus viva. You are not saying that is wrong. Ultimately, the High Court at one stage felt you must get 50% in the interview. You have all participated. Ultimately, the one great problem which face the district judiciary is mediocrity. And if we do not do this... all that happens is the same...this will get replicated in the High Courts- appoint everybody by seniority… you have to ensure that there are good people, that there is incentive to do well and that incentive to do well must also percolate in the appointments to the High Court… when will the judiciary change? …”

Even though the CJI said that the bench was not inclined to entertain the petitions, ultimately he agreed to adjourn the hearing till tomorrow.

Case : Dr.Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Diary No(s).508/2024

Click here to read the order