LDCE - The Legal Chamber

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...

The Supreme Court referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. It identified two substantial questions of law concerning the eligibility of judicial officers with prior bar experience for direct recruitment as District Judges, and the relevant time for determining such eligibility. Facts Of The Case: The present batch of petitions primarily sought a review of the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In that decision, a three-judge bench had upheld rules that barred members of the state judicial service from applying for the posts of District Judges reserved for direct recruitment from the bar under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The review petitioners, along with other connected writ petiti...

Tag: LDCE

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

Supreme Court Seeks Larger Bench’s View :Can a Serving Judicial Officer Apply as a “Fresh” Judge?