The promotion of 68 judicial officials to the position of district judge in the State of Gujarat was put on hold by the Supreme Court on Friday after it objected to the State Government’s notification of the promotions while their validity remained a matter under appeal before the Court.
The Gujarat High Court’s proposal for the promotion of judicial officials and the subsequent government announcement to carry out the recommendation were both halted by a bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar.
“State govt issued notification during the pendency of plea and after this court issued notice…We stay the High Court recommendation and the government notification. Respective promotes are sent to their original post which they were holding before promotion,” Justice MR Shah said while reading out the operative portion of the judgment. The present stay order would be applicable to those promotes whose names do not figure within the first 68 candidates in the merit list, the bench clarified further in the order.
#SupremeCourt STAYS PROMOTION of 68 JUDICIAL OFFICERS from Gujarat, including the one which convicted #RahulGandhi in a defamation case.
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) May 12, 2023
Pending final orders, these judicial officers have been sent back to their preceding posts.#SupremeCourtofIndia pic.twitter.com/BGG1XvV2T0
Justice Shah also said that promotions need to be based on the merit-cum-seniority approach and need to pass a suitability test. Recommendations by the HC and the ensuing government announcement are unlawful.
Following the verdict, many media organisations reported that Harish Hasmukh Bhai Varma, who rendered the judgement of conviction against Congressman Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case that resulted in his exclusion from the Lok Sabha, is one of the 68 judges whose elevation would be affected by the stay order.
However, Justice MR Shah, the Supreme Court judge who issued the order, clarified to Bar & Bench on Sunday that the media had inaccurately reported the stay granted by him. He emphasized that the judge who convicted Gandhi would not be affected by the stay.
This is due to the explicit clarification in the order that the stay would not be applicable to individuals on the list who would be promoted solely on the basis of merit. Such individuals would still be eligible for promotion even if the criteria were solely based on merit.
“That order has nothing to do with one person. The issue was about merit-cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit. The reports on social media say that the bench stayed all 68 promotions, but those persons have not read the order. Promotions of only persons falling outside the merit list (and who were promoted based on seniority) have stayed,” Bar and Bench quoted Justice Shah as saying.
“I have read that the gentleman (Surat court judge in Rahul Gandhi case) is not getting the promotion. That is also not true. He is also getting the promotion on merit. He is first among the 68 in terms of merit,” Justice Shah told Bar and Bench.
SC stays the promotion of 68 judicial officers
The appeal before the SC sought to contest the Gujarat government’s suggestions for the elevation of district judges in the state. The petitioners claimed that the appointments had been made in violation of the recruitment rules, which required that district judge positions be filled by reserving 65% of seats on merit-cum-seniority basis and on the candidates passing a suitability test.
The Gujarat High Court and the state government were given notice by the top court last month on the basis of the petitioners’ arguments. It’s interesting to note that, at the time notice was served, the Gujarat government was still reviewing the high court’s recommendation to promote the concerned district judges. But less than a week later, the state administration announced the promotions of the justices the high court had recommended.
The Supreme Court responded by strongly objecting to the promotions given to district judges in Gujarat in March, while the case was still pending challenging the names the high court had recommended. Justice Shah had described this as an “overreach” on the part of the executive. The bench stated, “We are initially of the opinion that it is nothing but an overreach of the court’s process and the current proceedings.” It stated the following on April 28:
“It is very unfortunate that despite the fact that the respondents/State Government were aware of the present proceedings, the state government has issued the promotion order after the receipt of the notice issued by this court in the proceedings. In the promotion order, even the state government had stated that the promotions are subject to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. We do not appreciate the haste and hurry in which the State has approved and passed the promotion order when this court was seized with the matter and a detailed order was passed issuing notice. It is to be noted that the selection was of the year 2022, therefore there was no extraordinary urgency in passing the promotion order.”
The state secretary was also called to appear in court on the following hearing date to provide an explanation in person. The division bench warned that the government’s notification would be suspended if it was not pleased with the provided reason.
In front of the government officials present in court earlier this month, Justice Shah interrogated the Gujarati state’s attorney and demanded an explanation for the decision to announce the promotions after the Supreme Court took the case. The judge scolded the administration for attempting to “overreach” the court’s procedures once more.
“What was the extraordinary hurry that the state government could not wait ten days before notifying the promotions? Is your secretary above the law? This is nothing but an attempt to overreach this court and the present proceedings. We are taking this matter very seriously. We can finish anyone’s career. Never try to overreach the Supreme Court’s process,” Justice Shah exclaimed.
