Bengal, Kerala no to centralised selection of subordinate judges

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, August 18

The proposal to put in place a centralised examination system for the selection of subordinate court judges today met with vehement opposition from certain states, including West Bengal and Kerala, which said the move was against the basic structure of the Constitution.

During the hearing on a PIL seeking streamlining of judicial appointments in subordinate courts, senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi told a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar that any such centralised system would “dislocate” the scheme for appointment of subordinate court judges provided under Article 233.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

According to Article 233, appointments, postings and promotions of district judges in any state have to be made by the Governor in consultation with the respective High Court. He said the term “appointment” was a comprehensive expression that included the entire process and it has to be construed like that only. “There should be a detailed discussion. Let it go to a Constitution Bench. There should be no hurry,” Dwivedi told the Bench.

As the court talked about a large number of vacancies in subordinate courts, Dwivedi said there were huge vacancies even in high courts. “Should we change the collegium system?” he wondered. “What you are proposing is a fundamental revolution… In such a system, states may not have a voice… It will affect the federal structure,” the state’s counsel had told the Bench last month. Dwivedi’s submissions were supported by senior counsel Joydeep Gupta, representing Kerala, who said any centralised system would violate basic structure of the Constitution.

As arguments remained inconclusive, the Bench said it would hear the matter on Monday and Tuesday in the post-lunch session. A decision can be expected before August 27 when CJI Khehar is due to retire. 

While most states and high courts have agreed to the proposal, many others have opposed the proposal. Some southern states have raised concern about language and implementation of their state specific reservation policy in any such centralised system of selection of subordinate court judges.

The Bench has repeatedly clarified that all state-specific rules and reservation policy would continue to be adhered to even after coming into effect of the centralised examination system. The new system was primarily aimed at doing away with the inordinate delay in judicial appointments in subordinate courts, it said.