Constitution Bench links sense of ‘stagnation’ in lower judiciary to prolonged litigation

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Tuesday (September 23, 2025) linked the sense of “stagnation” in subordinate judicial services to prolonged litigation and pendency in Indian courts.

The Bench said a weary feeling of inertness was creeping into the ranks of the district judiciary, especially among young minds who spend years in subordinate judicial services with little or no prospect of professional recognition or career advancement.

The pendency in district courts is 4.69 crore cases according to the National Judicial Data Grid, of which 3.69 crore are criminal cases and 1.09 crore are civil cases.

Justice M.M. Sundresh said a vibrant district judiciary represented a healthy institution and was part of the basic structure of the Constitution. He spoke of a bright law clerk whom he had persuaded to join the judicial service, “I met her recently and she was worried where her career would end up,” the senior judge said.

“The idea is for the public to get qualitative services from judicial officers. But when the system does not facilitate these judicial officers, it is acting contrary to the Constitution,” Justice Sundresh pointed out.

Justice Sundresh, referring indirectly to the increased flurry of cases coming all the way to the Supreme Court and long pendency or indecision even over bail petitions, said “the base [district judiciary] must be very strong. If it is weak, litigation would multiply”. At one point during the hearing, Justice Sundresh said what judges do in a year on the Bench, lawyers do in five in the Bar.

Chief Justice Gavai agreed with his companion judge’s remarks, adding that “the reason why we are not getting talented people as civil judges is the feeling that they would stagnate. Many of the brilliant people who join the judicial service do not make principal district judge even in 15 or 16 years”.

The Constitution Bench is hearing a reference on whether judicial officers with seven years’ legal experience can avail Bar quota for District Judge appointment.

The reference to the Constitution Bench by a Division Bench of the court was based on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. Clause (2) of the Article prescribes that “a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a District Judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment”.

The question was whether a judicial officer with seven years’ past experience in the Bar could also be considered for appointment as District Judge under the constitutional provision.

The Reference spawned from an appeal challenging a Kerala High Court decision setting aside a District Judge appointment on the ground that, at the time of issuing the order of appointment, he was not a practising advocate and was functioning as Munsif.

The hearing will continue on Wednesday (September 24, 2025).