Judicial Appointments

Supreme Court Mandates Collective Collegium Review for High Court Judge Elevations: Chirag Bhanu Singh vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh (2024)

/ Collegium System, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 217, High Court Appointments, Judicial Appointments, Judicial Review

Supreme Court Mandates Collective Collegium Review for High Court Judge Elevations: Chirag Bhanu Singh vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court Collegium must collectively reconsider recommendations for High Court judge elevations, or if the Chief Justice can act individually. CASE TYPE: Judicial Appointments and Constitutional Law Case Name: Chirag […]

Supreme Court Mandates Collective Collegium Review for High Court Judge Elevations: Chirag Bhanu Singh vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh (2024) Read Post »

Minimum Qualifying Marks for Viva Voce: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Rules in Judicial Appointments (2024)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Judicial Appointments, Service Law, Service Law with Article 309

Minimum Qualifying Marks for Viva Voce: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Rules in Judicial Appointments (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prescribing minimum qualifying marks for viva voce (interview) in judicial service exams is constitutional and in line with previous Supreme Court rulings. CASE TYPE: Service Law, specifically concerning judicial appointments. Case Name: Abhi Meet Sinha &

Minimum Qualifying Marks for Viva Voce: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Rules in Judicial Appointments (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Power in Judicial Appointments: Dr. Kavita Kamboj vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2024)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Constitutional Law with Article 235, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007, Judicial Appointments, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Power in Judicial Appointments: Dr. Kavita Kamboj vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the High Court’s authority to set eligibility criteria for promotions within the state’s higher judicial service, specifically the requirement of securing a minimum of 50% marks in

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Power in Judicial Appointments: Dr. Kavita Kamboj vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Civil Judges Despite Procedural Flaws: Vivek Kaisth & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (20 November 2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Judicial Appointments, Service Law, Service Law with Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Civil Judges Despite Procedural Flaws Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 1007 Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Can appointments to judicial posts be upheld even if the selection process had procedural flaws? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Civil Judges Despite Procedural Flaws: Vivek Kaisth & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (20 November 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh High Court to Adhere to 10% Quota in Judicial Appointments: Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

/ C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, Judicial Appointments, Judicial Review, M.R. Shah, Service Law, Service Rules

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh High Court to Adhere to 10% Quota in Judicial Appointments: Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 229 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J. Can a High Court exceed the 10% quota for appointments through limited

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh High Court to Adhere to 10% Quota in Judicial Appointments: Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh High Court to Adhere to 10% Quota in Judicial Appointments: Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

/ (2010) 15 SCC 170, All India Judges’ Association, C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, Judicial Appointments, M.R. Shah, Quota System, Service Law

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh High Court to Adhere to 10% Quota in Judicial Appointments: Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh exceeded the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examination as directed by the Supreme Court. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Judicial Appointments

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh High Court to Adhere to 10% Quota in Judicial Appointments: Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Exclusion of Fast Track Court Service for High Court Elevation: C. Yamini vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (23 February 2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 217, Interpretation of Constitution, Judges, Judicial Appointments, Seniority, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Exclusion of Fast Track Court Service for High Court Elevation: C. Yamini vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether service as a District & Sessions Judge in a Fast Track Court can be considered as judicial service for elevation to the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution

Supreme Court Upholds Exclusion of Fast Track Court Service for High Court Elevation: C. Yamini vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (23 February 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reinstates Judge: Eligibility Determined by Application Date in Service Law Matter (12 September 2022)

/ B.R. Gavai, C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, Judicial Appointments, Service Law, Service Law with Reinstatement

Supreme Court Reinstates Judge: Eligibility Determined by Application Date Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7781 of 2021) Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J. Can a judicial officer be disqualified from appointment to a higher judicial post if they were eligible

Supreme Court Reinstates Judge: Eligibility Determined by Application Date in Service Law Matter (12 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Judicial Member’s Extension: Union of India vs. Navneet Kumar (2022)

/ Administrative Law, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 with Section 6(3), Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, B.R. Gavai, Central Administrative Tribunal, Extension of Service, Judges, Judicial Appointments, L. Nageswara Rao, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Judicial Member’s Extension: Union of India vs. Navneet Kumar (2022) Date of the Judgment: May 5, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 422 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J. Can a competent authority reject a recommendation for extension of term of a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Judicial Member’s Extension: Union of India vs. Navneet Kumar (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Eligibility for Higher Judicial Service Exam: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Judges, Judicial Appointments, Judicial Promotions, L. Nageswara Rao, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, Service Law

Supreme Court Modifies Eligibility for Higher Judicial Service Exam: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of eligibility criteria for promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). CASE TYPE: Service Law, specifically concerning judicial appointments and promotions. Case Name: All India Judges Association

Supreme Court Modifies Eligibility for Higher Judicial Service Exam: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes Jharkhand High Court’s 50% aggregate marks criteria for District Judge Selection

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 with Rule 14, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 with Rule 21, Judicial Appointments, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court quashes Jharkhand High Court’s 50% aggregate marks criteria for District Judge Selection LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can alter the selection criteria for District Judge appointments after the selection process has commenced and the marks have been disclosed. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. The High

Supreme Court quashes Jharkhand High Court’s 50% aggregate marks criteria for District Judge Selection Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan High Court’s Decision to Deny Civil Judge Post Based on Criminal Antecedents: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep Morya & Anr. (2021) INSC 581 (16 September 2021)

/ Civil Judge, Criminal Antecedents, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Judicial Appointments, K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Suitability Assessment

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan High Court’s Decision to Deny Civil Judge Post Based on Criminal Antecedents Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 581 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Can a High Court interfere with the decision of a committee to deny a judicial post to a candidate

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan High Court’s Decision to Deny Civil Judge Post Based on Criminal Antecedents: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep Morya & Anr. (2021) INSC 581 (16 September 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top