judicial appointments - The Legal Chamber

Direct Recruits vs. Promotees: Supreme Court Lays Down Seniority Rules for Higher Judiciary

7Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Direct Recruits vs. Promotees: Supreme Court Lays Down Seniority Rules for Higher Judiciary

The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, upheld the principle that upon entry into the Higher Judicial Service, officers from different recruitment sources lose their "birthmark." It mandated a uniform 4-point annual roster system for determining seniority, based on merit-cum-seniority within the cadre, and rejected preferential treatment based on prior service in lower judicial ranks. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an interlocutory application filed in the long-pending All India Judges Association writ petition. The application, brought by the Amicus Curiae, highlighted a recurring dispute regarding the criteria for determining inter se seniority among three categories of officers within the Higher Judicial Services (HJS): Regular Promotees (RPs), those p...

Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with 7 Years’ Combined Experience Eligible for District Judge Post

27Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with 7 Years’ Combined Experience Eligible for District Judge Post

This Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment reinterpreted Article 233(2) of the Constitution. It held that judicial officers are not barred from applying for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment. The Court clarified that the seven-year practice requirement under Article 233(2) applies only to candidates not already in judicial service, thereby overruling contrary precedents like Dheeraj Mor. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a batch of petitions challenging the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of District Judges. The core dispute was whether a person already in the state judicial service (a Civil Judge) could apply for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment, a stream historically reserved fo...

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate

The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, applies only when the number of eligible candidates is less than the advertised vacancies. Since one recommended candidate was rejected, the next eligible candidate (appellant) should have been appointed instead of carrying forward the vacancy. The Court emphasized strict adherence to statutory rules in judicial appointments, reinforcing that vacancies must be filled from the existing merit list unless rules explicitly permit otherwise. The judgment clarifies that "selected direct recruits available for appointment" includes candidates next in line if recommended candidates are not approved. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Tosh Kumar Sharma, who participated in the 2016 recruitment proce...

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion

5Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which permits the Full Court to designate advocates as Senior Advocates suo motu based on exceptional merit. The Court clarified that such designations must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity, as outlined in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. The judgment emphasized that the suo motu power of the Full Court is supplementary to the application-based process and does not undermine the statutory framework. The amended Rule 6(9) was upheld, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a challenge to the High Court of Oriss...

Supreme Court Big Consumer Protection Verdict: Tenure, Transparency, and Tribunal Reforms

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Big Consumer Protection Verdict: Tenure, Transparency, and Tribunal Reforms

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the appointment process and tenure of members in State and District Consumer Commissions. It mandates judicial majority in selection committees and a five-year tenure, overturning previous rules. The Court also clarifies that written examinations are not required for judicial members, but are necessary for non-judicial members for both appointment and reappointment. Facts Of The Case: The genesis of this case lies in challenges to the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. Initially, the Bombay High Court struck down certain rules concerning eligibility criteri...

Big Win for Judges: Supreme Court Reduces Experience Needed for Higher Judicial Posts

4Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Big Win for Judges: Supreme Court Reduces Experience Needed for Higher Judicial Posts

The Supreme Court modified judicial service rules, increasing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for District Judge promotions from 10% to 25%. It reduced the required experience for LDCE eligibility to 3 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and mandated 10% accelerated promotions for Civil Judges (Junior Division). The Court also reinstated a 3-year minimum Bar practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants, counting from provisional enrollment. Vacancies under LDCE will be filled via regular promotion if unfilled. States must amend rules within three months to comply. The judgment aims to incentivize merit while ensuring judicial efficiency. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a series of interlocutory applications (IAs) filed in t...