'Gone too far': Allahabad HC tells SC to stop micromanaging state judiciary

The simmering tension between the Supreme Court and state High Courts over control of the subordinate judiciary boiled over on Wednesday, with the Allahabad High Court urging the apex court to “adopt a hands-off approach” in framing service rules for state judicial officers, according to a TOI report.

The strong remarks came during a hearing on judicial service conditions, reviving a two-decade-long disagreement over who should decide promotions and recruitment for the lower judiciary.

Representing the Allahabad High Court, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the Constitution clearly empowers HCs under Article 227(1) to supervise district courts. “Why should the High Courts be divested of their authority and duty under the Constitution? It is time to strengthen the HCs, not weaken them. Things have gone too far,” he asserted.

HCs defend autonomy, SC seeks uniformity

The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, clarified that it had no intention of curbing the powers of High Courts. Justice Kant, the next Chief Justice of India, said the ongoing deliberations were aimed at ensuring “some uniformity” across states in the promotion of district judges.

“The purpose of the present proceedings is not to usurp the powers of HCs in relation to district judiciary,” Justice Kant observed, adding that the court was exploring the need for general guidelines to streamline promotions.

TOI further reported that the debate has its roots in the Supreme Court’s 2017 concept paper proposing an All India Judicial Service and centralised exams for district judges—an idea resisted by several HCs, including Allahabad. Dwivedi contended that the apex court “can’t be fixing retirement age, quota, or eligibility” for judicial officers, warning that such interference undermines the federal structure of the judiciary.

Promotions, quotas, & unequal pathways

Currently, promotions to district judge posts follow varying state-specific rules. While career judicial officers often take up to two decades to reach the top, advocates with ten years of practice can become district judges through direct recruitment. A third route—limited departmental examinations—adds another layer of complexity.

The ratio of promotions to direct recruitment, which was 50-25-25 in 2002, shifted to 65-25-10 in 2010 before being restored to its original structure by the Supreme Court. CJI Gavai questioned why the Allahabad HC opposed a uniform policy but assured, “We do not even remotely intend to take away powers of the HCs.”

Dwivedi, however, maintained that service conditions differ widely among states, arguing that High Courts are best placed to manage these nuances. “The Supreme Court can step in where a High Court fails to manage its subordinate judiciary—but not otherwise,” he said, urging the court to let each HC determine its own framework.

According to the report, senior advocate Maninder Acharya, representing the Punjab and Haryana High Court, echoed the sentiment, saying the existing system “works well” and needs no central interference. Advocates from Kerala, Bihar, and Delhi also supported maintaining the status quo, arguing against any change in promotion procedures.