Judiciary Appointments Stir Controversy: Supreme Court Weighs In

In a critical hearing, the Supreme Court was informed about nearly 5,000 vacancies in district judiciary posts. Debates ensued on whether advocates with judicial experience could fill these gaps under Article 233 of the Constitution. The bench continues to deliberate on these pressing constitutional questions.

The Supreme Court was alerted to a significant shortfall in district judiciary roles, with 5,000 vacancies out of 25,870 sanctioned posts remaining unfilled. Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy emphasized the need to recognize bar and judicial experience as equivalent, advocating for an integrated judiciary approach.

A Constitution bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai debated whether advocates with seven years of prior practice could be considered for district judge roles through the bar quota, as outlined in Article 233. This discussion focused on gaps in constitutional interpretation, affecting judiciary independence and state roles in judge appointments.

The bench is set to conclude hearings on this constitutional question, with expectations of a reserved judgment soon. Debates have highlighted concerns around stagnation within the judiciary and the criteria needed for diverse candidates to ascend to district judge positions.

(With inputs from agencies.)