A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that struck down a 2015 amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.
The amendment dealt with appointments to the post of district judge (entry level).
Background
The 2015 amendment allowed the high court to fill vacant district judge posts with promotions from the subordinate judiciary if no suitable candidates were found from the Bar quota (advocates with at least 7 years of practice) in two consecutive recruitment examinations.
The provision was introduced as a corrective measure after repeated recruitment failures from the advocate quota. Between 2011 & 2015, the state advertised 304 vacancies for district judges. Yet, only 11 advocates were found eligible and selected, accounting for just 3.61% of the posts reserved for direct recruitment from the Bar.
As a result, a large number of vacancies remained unfilled, causing an increased workload on existing judges, slowing down disposal rates, and hindering the administration of justice in Madhya Pradesh.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, through its registrar general, has approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the high court’s order dated April 4, 2025, which had quashed the amendment.
The petition, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, argues that the amendment was not arbitrary but a “necessary institutional response” to ensure continuity in judicial functioning.
“The proviso to Rule 5(1)(c) was introduced as a necessary institutional response to the chronic failure of the direct recruitment process for district judges through a quota reserved for lawyers, which remained ineffective since 2006,” the plea stated.
Justification For The Amendment
According to the petition, the amendment did not create a new recruitment pathway but merely served as a conditional adjustment within the existing framework. Its objective, it said, was to maintain efficiency in the higher judiciary and prevent mounting vacancies from paralysing the system.
The plea further argued that the Madhya Pradesh High Court failed to appreciate the contextual and constitutional rationale behind the amendment, which was aligned with the constitutional mandate of ensuring timely justice delivery.
What Triggered The Case
The high court had passed its April 2025 order on petitions filed by candidates who challenged the amendment, contending that it diluted opportunities for practising lawyers and altered the prescribed method of judicial recruitment.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
