A constitutional debate unfolded in the Supreme Court over the extent of the High Courts’ authority in determining seniority norms within the district judiciary. The Allahabad High Court took a firm position that the Supreme Court should avoid issuing detailed directions on seniority criteria, arguing that doing so would intrude on the constitutional autonomy granted to High Courts to manage the subordinate judiciary. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, speaking for the High Court, highlighted provisions in the Constitution that place full control of lower courts under High Courts. He argued that High Courts understand their administrative realities better and therefore should retain the freedom to set policies on promotions and recruitment without intervention from the apex court.
During the hearing, the bench led by the Chief Justice responded by assuring that there was no intention to undermine or take away the discretionary powers of the High Courts. The Chief Justice remarked that the goal was not to interfere with their authority, but questioned the need for each High Court to follow different standards. The bench clarified that any directions issued would be broad in nature and not touch specific inter se seniority frameworks. Another judge on the bench reinforced this view, saying the Supreme Court had no plan to replace or supersede the High Courts’ functions, only to ensure a consistent structural approach where appropriate.
Dwivedi continued to stress that the constitutional design expects High Courts to independently manage judicial service matters. He framed the issue as one of institutional balance, arguing that the Supreme Court has already extended its supervisory role significantly. According to him, any further involvement would weaken the federal judicial structure instead of strengthening it. He also pointed out that judicial officers already have avenues for elevation, suggesting that promotions and recruitment systems are functioning. His submissions indicated that experimentation at the High Court level should be allowed rather than standardising processes from above.
The Supreme Court bench is examining whether a uniform quota policy should exist across states to determine positions for direct recruits, promotees, and lateral entrants in the district judiciary. This matter directly affects career progression opportunities and concerns of stagnation among judicial officers. Other High Courts also presented data, indicating that the gap between direct recruits and promotees is narrowing, suggesting that both streams now have legitimate opportunities for elevation to the High Court. The hearing remains ongoing, with further arguments expected in the coming week as the court continues to consider whether consistency or independent state discretion best serves judicial administration.
