The constitutional bench will hear a reference to whether court officials with seven -year legal experience can use the quota for the appointment of a district judge. File | Photo Credit: Hind
The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the main judge of India Bravai (23 September 2025), joined the feeling of “stagnation” in subordinate court services with the prolonged court and pension in the Indian courts.
The bench said that a tired sense of ivarness crawled into the district judiciary, especially among young people who spend years in subordinate court services with a small or no view of professional recognition or career procedure.
The curtain of the district courts is 4.69 crore cases according to national court data, of which 3.69 crore are criminal cases and 1.09 crore are civil cases.
MM Sundresh justice said that the live judiciary in the district represents a healthy institution and was part of the basic structure of the Constitution. He talked about a clear clerk who was convinced to join the court service, “I recently met her and she feared where her career would end,” said the higher judge.
“The idea is for the public to obtain qualitative services from court officials. But when the system does not deserve these court officials, it is that it is contrary to the constitution,” said the judiciary Sundresh.
The justice of Sundresh, which indirectly referred to an increased flush of cases that came to the Supreme Court and a long pendant or indecision, even above the bail petitions, said: “The base (district judiciary) must be very strong. In one place during hearing, Judge Sundresh said what the judges were doing on the bench a year, lawyers in the bar are doing at five.
The chief judge Gavai agreed with the comments of his shareholder and added that “the reason we do not get talented people as a civic judge is the feeling that they would stagnate. Many brilliant people who join the court service are not made by the main district judge for 15 or 16 years.”
The constitutional bench will hear a reference to whether court officials with seven -year legal experience can use the quota for the appointment of a district judge.
The reference to the bench of the Constitution by the division bench of the court was based on the interpretation of Article 233 (2) of the Constitution. Article 2 of the Article stipulates that “a person who is no longer on the service of the Union or State will be eligible for the district judge to be appointed only if he was a defense counsel or prosecutor for at least seven years and is recommended to appoint the High Court.”
The question was whether a court official with seven years of experience in the bar could also be considered as the appointment of a district judge under the constitutional provision.
The reference occurred from the appeal that questioned the decision of the Kheral High Court, which annulled the appointment of a district judge because of the fact that at the time of the appointment was not a practicing advocate and functioned as MunSIF.
Hearing will continue on Wednesday (September 24, 2025).
Published – 23 September 2025 22:21 is
