A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT will hear on October 28 and 29 the long-pending issue concerning career stagnation among entry-level judicial officers - Judicial Magistrate First Class/Civil Judge Cadre and whether a percentage of posts in Principal District cadre should be reserved for promotions from the lower judiciary.
A five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi will examine how seniority should be determined within the higher judicial service and whether a quota-based promotion system is necessary to ensure progression for judicial officers joining as Civil Judges or Judicial Magistrates.
The Bench scheduled October 28 for submissions supporting the proposal to earmark a portion of Principal District Judge posts for promotees from the lower judiciary, while those opposing it will present arguments on October 29. Advocates Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Manu Krishnan have been appointed nodal counsels for both sides to coordinate and make a single compilation of written submissions.
The reference to the Constitution Bench stems from an earlier October 7 order in the All-India Judges Association case, where concerns were raised about limited promotional opportunities for those joining the judicial services at the entry stage of JMFC/Civil Judge stage within the judicial service.
During the earlier hearings, Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar suggested reserving a certain percentage of Principal District Judge posts for promotee officers, arguing that many lower court judges never reach the senior-level judicial posts before retirement.
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta urged caution, suggesting the Court may first consider whether a fact-finding committee should be set up to verify if stagnation was a widespread issue. CJI Gavai said that it is possible to ascertain the status from the data furnished by the High Courts.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought clarity on whether the issue would include promotion to High Courts. The CJI clarified that appointments to the High Courts are not treated as promotions in the judicial hierarchy.
Earlier, the Court noted that judicial officers recruited as Judicial Magistrate First Class or Civil Judges often face career stagnation, rarely reaching the post of Principal District Judge, let alone being considered for elevation to the High Court. The Bench had therefore observed that a balance must be struck between direct recruits and promotees, ensuring that experience gained at the grassroots level is duly recognised without compromising merit or institutional efficiency.
The Supreme Court referred the issue of career stagnation among entry-level judicial officers to a five-judge Constitution Bench following the observations made by amicus curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar in his submission on September 17, 2025.
Bhatnagar had highlighted an “anomalous situation” prevailing in most states, where judicial officers who begin their careers as Civil Judges (CJ) rarely progress to the post of Principal District Judge (PDJ), let alone being elevated to the High Court. This, he said, had resulted in many talented young lawyers being discouraged from joining the judiciary at the entry level. Acting on this, the top Court sought responses from the Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all States and Union Territories as well as the Registrar Generals of all High Courts.
Upon examining the responses, the Court found divergent views — some High Courts acknowledged that lower judiciary officers face severe stagnation, while others and certain State Governments disputed this claim. The Court, in its October 7 order, noted that while judges initially appointed as Civil Judges gain invaluable experience, a balance must be struck between their promotional prospects and those of directly recruited District Judges. Observing that the matter involved interpreting earlier three-judge Benches decisions, the Court deemed it necessary to place the issue before a five-judge Constitution Bench to ensure a comprehensive, long-term resolution to the problem of limited advancement opportunities within the judicial service.
