INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 4TH of November, 2025 reserved its verdict on whether uniform, nationwide criteria should be framed for determining seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) cadre.
A five- judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, led by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice B.R. Gavai, began hearing on October 28, 2025 to decide upon the question concerning the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services (HJS). The matter arises out of the All India Judges Association [Writ Petition (civil) 1022 of 1989; 2025 INSC 735] case and was referred on 7th of October, 2025 after two – judge bench of CJI Gavai and Justice K.V. Chandran concerning issues related to promotion stagnation and uneven seniority structures within the Higher Judicial Service (HJS).
This issue affects the career progress and promotion prospects of district judges, whose seniority determines eligibility for the position of principal District Judge (PDJ) and Sessions Judge and ultimately promotion to the High Court Judge under Article 217(2) of the Constitution of India.
KEY POINTS
- There are two distinct routes to Higher Judicial Services (HJS), one promotion from lower ranks such as Civil Judge to Senior Judge to District Judge, and the other stream is direct recruitment from the Bar. Though promotees make up to nearly 75% of the Cadre, yet direct recruits tend to rise faster.
- The age and entry disparities between the direct recruits and promotees are, the former join in their mid – 30s and the latter in their mid – 40s. Given that the date of entry is the primary factor for determining seniority using the 40-point roster, promotees often fall behind in the gradation list.
- In this case the amicus curiae, senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, described this as an “unintended structural disadvantage” as promoted judges frequently reach retirement age by the time they attain senior positions, which effectively withhold the opportunities for elevation.
- Data from various High Courts of India emphasise a clear imbalance. For instance in Bihar, the Patna High Court records 86 out of 91 Principal District Judges (PDJ) are direct recruits, while in Uttar Pradesh 58 out of 78 are direct recruits and only 12 are promotees. These data shows that direct recruits tend to rise faster to senior positions than those who are being promoted from civil judges to High Judicial Services(HJS).
- This delayed promotions affects the institutional diversity and discourages capable civil judges and young entrants like talented advocates joining at initial level.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In May,2025, the Supreme Court revisited and clarified the framework established in the All India Judges Association [(2002) 4 SCC 247] case. Where the Court mentioned that the ratio of 75:25 between promotees and direct recruits must be strictly maintained. Within the 75% promotional quota, 25% should go through Limited Developmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) to encourage merit based progress. The service requirement was also reduced from five years to three years to enable faster development.
The Court emphasised that the 40- point roster system, drawn from the case R.K. Sabarwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745] must be applied to all High Courts to ensure that seniority would not depend purely on when someone joined but on their roster slot, to create a fair sequence of promotion opportunities between the two sources of recruitment.
CONCLUSION
The result of the case will have major implications for judicial service structures and the integrity of the Indian Judiciary’s career progress system. By addressing the disparities between the promotees and the direct recruited, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India aims to ensure that the district judiciary remains a fair, merit – based and inspiring path for civil judges and talented advocates.
However the verdict of the bench remains pending, having reserved the judgement on whether a uniform national system for determining the seniority in HJS should be implemented.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By- Susmita Roychowdhury
