Explore Business Standard
Judicial Service
The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced hearing on a significant legal question on whether judicial officers, who had completed seven years of practice as advocates prior to joining the bench, can be appointed as district judges under vacancies earmarked for the Bar. A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran started hearing 30 petitions, having wide ramifications for judicial recruitment across the country. The bench is examining questions pertaining to interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution that governs appointment of district judges. Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State, Article 233 says. It also says: A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to b
The Supreme Court on Friday said it will commence hearing from September 23 on a key question whether a judicial officer, who has already completed seven years in the bar prior to joining a bench, is entitled to become an additional district judge (ADJ) in view of a vacancy. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran will commence the hearing on September 23 and hear arguments over three days, till September 25. The key question for adjudication is whether a judicial officer, who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining judicial service, can be considered for appointment as a district judge against vacancies earmarked for advocates under Bar quota. Article 233 of the Constitution deals with the appointment of district judges and reads: Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the governor of the State in consultation wit
The Supreme Court on Monday said its May 20 verdict fixing a minimum three-year law practice criterion to appear in entry level judicial services examination would apply prospectively and not affect the recruitment notices initiated prior to the judgment. Chief Justice B R Gavai-led bench on May 20 barred fresh law graduates from appearing in entry level judicial services examination and fixed a minimum three-year law practice criteria. On Monday, the bench, also comprising Justices Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, refused to examine a plea of Naveed Bukhtiya and five others, who are practising lawyers, and have challenged the recruitment notification of May 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission as it did not mandate the three-year practice rule. "You are saying that it was done only to defeat the purpose of the judgement. Was the full court of the High Court aware that the CJI is likely to pronounce the judgment on May 20, the CJI asked. The CJI clarified
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Monday held that visually impaired persons cannot be denied opportunity of employment in judicial services. A bench comprising justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had reserved the judgement on six petitions, including a suo motu (on its own) case, on December 3, last year over non-grant of quota to such candidates in judicial services in a few states. Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Mahadevan said that persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service recruitments and that the State must provide them affirmative action to ensure an inclusive framework. "Any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of persons with disabilities, whether through cutoff or procedural barriers must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality," the judge said. The judgement said no candidate can be denied consideration solely on account of their disability. The top court also set
The Centre on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that it recently notified the Unified Pension Scheme which might address the concerns of judicial officers. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard the submission made by the Centre's counsel. Attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre and apprised the bench about the Unified Pension Scheme (UPS). The matter relates to the applicability of the New Pension Scheme to the officers of the district judiciary. "It is the submission of the attorney general as well as the solicitor general that the Unified Pension Scheme may address concerns of all the employees, including the judicial officers," observed the bench. The court therefore found it appropriate to defer the matter for some time to experience how the Unified Pension Scheme worked and then take a call on the issues at hand. The matter would be heard after 12 weeks. The case raises concerns over the disburse
The Maharashtra government has set up a single-member committee of retired high court judge M L Tahaliyani for a judicial inquiry into the murder of sarpanch Santosh Deshmukh in Beed district, officials said on Thursday. Deshmukh, the sarpanch of Massajog village in Beed, was abducted, allegedly tortured, and murdered on December 9. Preliminary investigations indicated that Deshmukh had tried to resist an extortion attempt on an energy company operating a windmill project in the area. Police have arrested several persons in connection with the murder case. Walmik Karad, an associate of Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Deshmukh, has been arrested in a related extortion case and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the sarpanch's murder on Wednesday took him into seven-day custody. The judicial committee will determine whether any individual or organisation was responsible for Deshmukh's death, as per the government order issued on Wednesday. It will also assess the adequacy
Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on Saturday said district judiciary is the "backbone of the judiciary" and thus a crucial component of the rule of law and calling it subordinate must be stopped. Referring to the increasing number of women joining the district judiciary in the past few years, he highlighted that judges, despite being professionals, are affected by their own "brush with reality" and their mental health may suffer as a consequence. Speaking at the 'National Conference of the District Judiciary', which was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi here, Justice Chandrachud said district judiciary is the first point of contact for a citizen in search of justice. "The district judiciary is a crucial component of the rule of law," he said, adding, "Data on the NJDG (National Judicial Data Grid) reveals a basic truth - the district judiciary is not just the first but is also the final point of contact for citizens". The CJI said the reasons may be numerous -
Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on Saturday termed the district judiciary the "backbone of the judiciary" and said it is a crucial component of the rule of law. Speaking at the 'National Conference of the District Judiciary', which was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi here, the CJI said it was necessary to stop calling district judiciary subordinate. "The district judiciary is the first point of contact for a citizen in search of justice. The district judiciary is a crucial component of the rule of law," Justice Chandrachud said. He said the quality of work and the conditions in which the judiciary provides justice to citizens determine whether they have confidence in the judicial system. "The district judiciary is therefore called upon to shoulder tremendous responsibility and is aptly described as the 'backbone of the judiciary'. The spine is the core of the nervous system," the CJI said. "To sustain the spine of the legal system, we must stop calling the