New Delhi, May 19, 2024 — In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has suggested incorporating interviews to evaluate the suitability of judicial officers for promotion to District Judges under the 65% quota.
The apex court highlighted the importance of a comprehensive assessment process to ensure that only the most capable and competent candidates are promoted to higher judicial positions. The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, emphasized that while written examinations are essential, they should be complemented by interviews to gauge the candidates’ overall aptitude, demeanor, and understanding of legal principles.
The judgment underscored the need for a balanced evaluation method that goes beyond written tests. “Interviews will enable the selection committees to assess the practical knowledge, ethical standards, and judicial temperament of the candidates,” the court noted. This approach aims to address concerns about the current selection process being overly reliant on written exams, potentially overlooking crucial interpersonal and analytical skills required for higher judicial responsibilities.
The case was brought forward by Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and another petitioner, who challenged the existing promotion criteria within the Gujarat judiciary. The Supreme Court’s suggestion is expected to bring significant changes to the judicial promotion system, fostering a more holistic evaluation process.
This judgment reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring merit-based promotions and enhancing the quality of judicial officers at higher levels. The implementation of interviews as part of the selection process is anticipated to set a precedent for other states, promoting a more rigorous and comprehensive evaluation system across the country.
Case Title : Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors.
Name – Supriya, course – B.A.LL.B, College – S.S khanna Girls’ Degree College, UoA, Intern under legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
