Can India's Judge Promotion System Be Fixed

Introduction  

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, commenced substantive hearings on October 28 to adjudicate upon a critical question: Are promotion rules inadvertently creating structural discrimination against judges who rise through the ranks? The proceedings arise from systemic concerns regarding promotional parity between two distinct streams of recruitment to the District Judge cadre: officers elevated through promotional channels from subordinate judicial positions and those appointed through direct recruitment from the Bar. 

What Does the Legal Framework Currently Say? 

• The legal architecture governing judicial service recruitment finds its origins in the All India Judges Association precedent, wherein the Supreme Court undertook comprehensive standardization of service conditions within the subordinate judiciary. The 2002 judgment established a recruitment ratio prescribing 75% appointments through promotion and 25% through direct recruitment from the Bar—a formula designed to balance institutional experience with fresh legal talent. 
• Within the promotional quota, the Court mandated a bifurcated structure: 50% of positions to be filled on the principle of merit-cum-seniority following a suitability assessment, and the remaining 25% through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), creating an accelerated pathway for meritorious civil judges. 
• To ensure equitable inter-se seniority determination, the Court adopted a 40-point roster system, derived from R.K. Sabarwal v. State of Punjab (1995), intended to establish seniority based on roster allocation rather than chronological date of appointment alone. 

Why Are Promoted Judges Falling Behind? 

• The amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, has characterized the present situation as an "unintended structural disadvantage" afflicting the majority of the judicial service. What's causing this inequity? The crux lies in the significant age differential between the two recruitment streams at the point of entry into the District Judge cadre. 
• Direct recruits typically assume office in their mid-thirties, whereas promotional appointees attain the same position approximately a decade later, in their mid-forties, following years of subordinate court service.  
• Notwithstanding the roster system's intended ameliorative effect, the practical application of seniority determination by date of entry has resulted in promotional officers being systematically relegated to lower positions in the gradation list—the determinative instrument for further advancement. 

What Do the Numbers Reveal? 

Before the Bench reveals a pattern of disproportionate representation at senior levels: 

• Bihar: Among 91 Principal District and Sessions Judges, how many are promoted judges? Only 5, compared to 86 direct recruits. The Patna High Court's affidavit projects that upon the superannuation of these five officers, will any promoted judges remain in senior positions? No—the entirety of senior district judicial positions will be occupied by direct recruits. 
• Uttar Pradesh: Of 70 officers serving as District and Sessions Judges, 58 are direct recruits and merely 12 are promotional appointees. 
• Allahabad: Among the 100 senior-most officers, where does the first promoted judge appear? At Serial No. 29—meaning direct recruits occupy all top 28 positions. 
• Bombay: Since 2020, of 19 district judges elevated to the High Court bench, how many were promoted judges? Only 3, compared to 16 direct recruits. 

Why Does This Matter for Constitutional Justice? 

• Does this affect who reaches the High Court bench? Absolutely. The position of Principal District and Sessions Judge constitutes the conventional stepping stone to elevation under Article 217(2) of the Constitution. 
• The present systemic configuration results in promotional officers attaining eligibility for High Court consideration only proximate to their superannuation, effectively foreclosing opportunities for elevation. 
• What's the consequence? This structural barrier has profound implications for the composition and experiential diversity of the superior judiciary. 
• The district judiciary constitutes the foundation of India's justice delivery system, and when experienced trial judges cannot progress, the higher courts lose decades of practical courtroom knowledge. 

Has the Court Tried to Fix This Before? 

• In May 2025, the Supreme Court revisited the 2002 framework, issuing clarificatory directions to address implementation deficiencies.  
• What changed? The Court restored the LDCE quota to its intended 25% of promotional intake, correcting the unauthorized reduction to 10% adopted by several states.  
• The qualifying service requirement for LDCE eligibility was reduced from five years to three years, facilitating accelerated progression for meritorious officers. 
• The judgment further directed that promotional quotas be computed with reference to total sanctioned cadre strength rather than existing vacancies, preventing quota manipulation through vacancy management. 

What Solutions are Being Proposed? 

• How can the system achieve balance? The Bench's earlier observations toward achieving "proper balance" suggest judicial inclination toward remedial mechanisms ensuring promotional parity without wholesale disruption of existing structures.  
• The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has proactively recommended a concrete solution:  
• 50% of High Court appointments from judicial service officers should be reserved for district judges initially appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division), ensuring adequate representation of the promotional stream. 

Conclusion  

The constitutional adjudication currently underway will determine a fundamental question: Will decades of trial court experience continue informing superior court jurisprudence, or will structural barriers permanently foreclose this vital pathway to judicial excellence? Justice Bela M. Trivedi's elevation from City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (1995) to the Supreme Court exemplifies what's at stake—a pathway that may become increasingly rare unless the Court intervenes to restore fairness in judicial career progression.