The Allahabad High Court has requested the Supreme Court to adopt a “hands-off” approach regarding the promotion criteria for the district judiciary, emphasizing that the Constitution vests this power squarely in the high courts. The submission came during the hearing of a Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi on Wednesday, October 30, 2025.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Allahabad High Court, argued that Article 227(1) of the Constitutiongrants high courts superintendence over the district judiciary, and therefore, the Supreme Court should avoid intervening in the framing of criteria for promotions of promotee judges and directly recruited district judges. Dwivedi told the bench, “The Supreme Court should leave it to the high courts to frame the criteria for adequate promotional avenues for promotees and directly recruited district judges.”

While the Supreme Court bench acknowledged the need for some uniformity across states, it clarified that it did not intend to encroach upon the discretion of the high courts.

Background of the Case

The matter traces its origins to October 14, 2025, when the Supreme Court agreed to refer the issue of determining seniority in the higher judicial service to a Constitution bench. This decision followed an application filed by senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, acting as amicus curiae in a petition filed by the All India Judges Association for improving service conditions of judicial officers.

Bhatnagar highlighted concerns regarding career stagnation among promoted judges, pointing out that those promoted from civil judges often take decades to reach the position of district judges, whereas directly recruited judges progress faster in several states. For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, out of 70 district and sessions judges, 58 were directly recruited, while only 12 were promoted. In the Allahabad High Court, out of 257 elevated judges, 137 were promotees, and 118 were direct recruits.

The disparity extends to other states as well. States like Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, Kerala, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Assam, and Andhra Pradesh reportedly exhibit lopsided representation of promoted judges. Conversely, in states including Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, and Delhi, promotees occupy the majority of senior posts in the district judiciary.

High Court’s Arguments

Dwivedi contended that imposing a uniform promotion criterion could prove disastrous, weakening the high courts rather than strengthening them. He explained that service conditions and administrative structures vary widely across states, and therefore, the Supreme Court should exercise restraint. He emphasized, “Determining what is best in the interest of the district judiciary should be left to the respective high courts. Issuing directions could create imbalance where there is already equilibrium.”

Supporting this stance, senior advocate Maninder Acharya, appearing for the Punjab and Haryana High Courts, argued that judges coming up through promotion were receiving due recognition, thanks to regular recruitments and promotions. She pointed out that in the past decade (2015-2025), 13 out of 16 judicial officers elevated to high courtswere promotees, with the average age of promotees entering the high court being 57 years, compared to 55 years for direct recruits.

Dwivedi also cautioned that the Supreme Court was considering Bhatnagar’s application without access to complete data from all high courts, raising the risk of creating artificial imbalances. He urged that accurate, state-wise datashould first be compiled to ensure informed decision-making.

Supreme Court’s Position

The Supreme Court responded by stating that all high courts had been served notices and encouraged them to provide data regarding promotions and recruitment. The bench clarified that the objective of considering a uniform rule is not to usurp powers from the high courts, but rather to address broader concerns regarding seniority and career progression.

Additionally, a group of directly recruited district judges from the Delhi and Kerala high courts opposed any form of quota or special consideration for promotee judges, stressing the importance of merit-based promotions.

Despite the arguments presented, the Supreme Court posted the matter for further hearing on November 4, 2025, as discussions remained inconclusive.

Key Issues at Stake

1. Article 227(1) of the Constitution: Grants high courts superintendence over district judiciary, forming the legal basis for their control over promotion criteria.
2. Career Progression Disparity: Promotees often take longer to ascend to senior judicial positions compared to directly recruited judges.
3. State-Wise Variation: Significant differences exist in how promotions and recruitment are managed across states, making a uniform criterion potentially problematic.
4. Data Availability: High courts must provide accurate, comprehensive data to inform any judicial directive.
5. Judicial Autonomy vs Uniformity: Balancing state-level discretion with the need for consistent standards in career progression remains a key challenge.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s submission reflects a broader debate on judicial autonomy and central oversight in India’s district judiciary. While the Supreme Court seeks uniformity and fairness in promotions, the high courts assert their constitutional prerogative to determine what is appropriate within their respective jurisdictions. The case highlights the tension between centralized judicial oversight and localized administrative discretion, a recurring theme in discussions around the judiciary’s structural and functional reforms.

The outcome of this case will have implications not only for the career trajectories of promotee judges but also for the broader balance of power between the Supreme Court and high courts in India. With the next hearing scheduled for November 4, stakeholders across the judicial spectrum will closely watch developments, particularly regarding how data-driven and evidence-based considerations influence decisions on promotion criteria and seniority.