SHARED DESTINATIONS, DIFFERENT PATHS: EQUALISING SENIORITY IN THE HIGHER JUDICIARY

INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court’s Judgment in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 1328 (W.P. (C) No. 1022/1989), delivered on 19 November 2025 by a Constitution Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, finally settles the longstanding question of inter se seniority in the Higher Judicial Services (HJS).
A particularly significant aspect of this ruling is that no individual judge authored the judgment. Instead, it was issued as the Court’s collective voice, reflecting unity in a decision that affects the structural integrity of the Indian judiciary.

BRIEF FACTS
Recruitment to the cadre of District Judges takes place from three recognised channels:
(1) Regular Promotees rising through the judicial ranks;
(2) Officers promoted through Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations; and
(3) Direct Recruits from the Bar.
Over decades, officers from the first category expressed serious concerns about their slower progression to leadership roles when compared to younger direct recruits. These grievances — termed as “heartburn” — led the Amicus Curiae to seek a revised formula for seniority, resulting in this Constitution Bench intervention.

ISSUES OF LAW
The Court was required to answer:
1) Should seniority be influenced by prior service in lower judicial ranks?
2) Once appointed as District Judges, can officers still be differentiated based on their source of recruitment?
3) Is a uniform national roster essential to prevent disparity across States?
4) Can emotional grievances of stagnation justify preferential seniority rules?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. Equality within a Unified Cadre
The Court reaffirmed that once an officer enters the HJS, they shed the identity of their recruitment source. Any seniority rule that favoured one category over another would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
This principle removes any longstanding “birthmark” distinctions within the cadre.

2. Merit-Centric Career Progression
Promotions to the Selection Grade, Super Time Scale or administrative leadership roles must be governed by merit-cum-seniority, assessed only on service within HJS.
Length of service as a Civil Judge cannot be used to artificially elevate promotees ahead of direct recruits.
Administrative efficiency is prioritised over tenure-based advantage.

3. Heartburn is Not an Enforceable Right
While acknowledging the emotional strain of slower promotions, the Court held that personal dissatisfaction:
i. does not constitute legal injury
ii. cannot justify restructuring a constitutionally vital cadre
Judicial policy must remain anchored in institutional interests over individual sentiment.

4. Uniform Annual Seniority Roster Introduced
To eliminate varied practices across different States, the Court prescribed a national 4-point repeating roster for each recruitment year. Seniority shall be determined according to this roster and not based on the actual date of joining — provided recruitment is concluded within the next year.
This ensures that recruitment delays (common in direct appointments) do not unfairly affect those selected.

5. Vacancies and Non-Availability of Candidates
When suitable candidates are not found in the direct or LDCE streams:
i. promotees may be temporarily appointed but they will occupy only the positions allotted to promotees
ii. future years must restore the statutory quota balance
iii. Fairness is ensured without disturbing structural integrity.

6. Past Seniority Lists Will Not Be Disturbed
The Court made it clear that existing and settled seniority positions will remain untouched, thereby avoiding administrative chaos. States must amend their statutory Rules within three months to implement this framework.

CONCLUSION
This Constitution Bench Judgment marks a crucial advancement in strengthening the internal framework of India’s judicial services by ensuring that the principles of equality, merit and fairness remain foundational to career progression within the Higher Judicial Services. By eliminating distinctions based on the mode of entry and by instituting a uniform and nationwide system for determining seniority, the Supreme Court has resolved a decades-old imbalance and prevented the rise of artificial hierarchies within a unified judicial cadre.
The Ruling also reinforces that professional growth in the judiciary must always be guided by demonstrated merit and performance within the role of a District Judge, rather than prior tenure in lower ranks or subjective feelings of dissatisfaction. In choosing to deliver the Judgment without individual authorship, the Court has additionally underscored the institutional significance of the issue and the need for a harmonised and collective approach. Ultimately, the decision reaffirms that while judicial officers may enter through different pathways, once they don the mantle of the higher judiciary, they must stand as equals—equally accountable, equally respected and equally empowered to uphold the administration of justice.

SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Chief Legal Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained|” can be viewed at the link below: