20 March 2025 Legal Updates

Civil Judges' Recruitment : Gujarat & Karnataka HCs Suspend Selection Process To Await Supreme Court Judgment On Minimum Practice Condition

a. Case-

• All India Judges Association vs. Union of India

b. Date of Order-

• March 18, 2025

c. Bench-

• Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih

Issue in the Case:

The Supreme Court is deciding whether a minimum period of practice as a lawyer should be required to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). This follows the question of whether the condition requiring three years of practice, which was removed in the All India Judges Association case (2002), should be restored.

Recruitment Process in Abeyance:

Both the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts have put the recruitment process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on hold. This is due to the pending judgment by the Supreme Court on the matter.

Court’s Order:

The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, disposed of the interlocutory application after Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj confirmed that the recruitment process would not proceed until the Court’s judgment is delivered.

Details of the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts' Actions:

1. Karnataka High Court:

The selection process was already put on hold to await the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer required for the Civil Judge exam.

2. Gujarat High Court:

The Supreme Court stayed the recruitment process after the Gujarat High Court proceeded with it despite the issue of practice duration not being resolved.

3. Background on the Issue:

The Supreme Court is addressing whether a minimum practice requirement (three years at the Bar) should be restored for applicants wishing to take the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam. This requirement was previously removed in the 2002 All India Judges Association case.

4. March 4 Order:

On March 4, the Supreme Court stayed the recruitment process for Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC) and Civil Judge-Junior Division in Gujarat. This was due to the Gujarat Public Service Commission not requiring a minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer in their advertisement.

5. Gujarat High Court's Recruitment Process:

The Gujarat Public Service Commission’s advertisement did not prescribe the minimum years of practice requirement. The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Gujarat High Court continuing with the recruitment process despite this.

6. Legal Representation:

The interlocutory application was filed by Advocate-on-Record Ajit Pravin Wagh, with Senior Advocate BH Marlapalle leading the case.

7. Court’s Statement:

The Supreme Court emphasized that since it had reserved judgment on whether freshers should be allowed to apply for judicial entry-level positions, the Gujarat High Court should not have proceeded with the recruitment.

Child Victim’s Silence & Tears During Examination Alone Can’t Benefit Rape Accused: Supreme Court Restores Conviction After 38 years

a. Case-

• State of Rajasthan vs. Chatra

b. Date of Order-

• March 18, 2025

c. Bench-

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol

Rajasthan High Court's Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court had overturned the conviction of an individual for the rape of a minor girl. The reason for the acquittal was that the child victim, during cross-examination, remained silent and shed tears. The High Court argued that without direct testimony from the victim, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Supreme Court's Criticism:

The Supreme Court criticized the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment, expressing surprise at how the High Court set aside the trial court's conviction based solely on the victim's silence during cross-examination. The Court found this reasoning inadequate and reversed the High Court's decision.

Supreme Court's Judgment:

• Child Witness's Silence: The Supreme Court observed that the silence of the child victim during cross-examination, where she only shed tears, should not be interpreted as beneficial to the accused. The Court clarified that this silence was a result of the child’s trauma and not an indication of the victim's innocence or the accused’s guilt.
• Other Evidence: The Court emphasized that the absence of direct testimony from the child victim was not fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when there was other medical and circumstantial evidence supporting the accused’s guilt.

The Court's Analysis:

• The Court differentiated the silence of a child from that of an adult, stating that the silence of a child witness due to trauma cannot be equated to that of a fully realized adult.
• The Court pointed out that while the testimony of a prosecutrix is typically crucial for a conviction, there is no strict rule that a conviction cannot stand without such testimony, provided there is sufficient supporting evidence.
• Reference was made to previous cases where the conviction of the accused was upheld despite the lack of direct testimony from the victim, such as in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat, where the victim was "deaf and dumb and mentally retarded."

Case Precedents:

The Court cited several precedents to support its judgment, including:

• State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat: Even when the victim is unable to testify, other evidence can still lead to a conviction.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh: This case summarized principles on evaluating a child witness's testimony.

Criticism of High Court:

The Supreme Court also criticized the Rajasthan High Court for revealing the name of the victim in its judgment, which is prohibited to protect the privacy of victims in such cases.

Time Lapse:

The incident occurred in 1986, and the appeal was decided by the Rajasthan High Court in 2013, after a delay of several decades. The Supreme Court did not remand the case to the High Court for reconsideration due to the long time passed and decided to evaluate the evidence itself.

Supreme Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State, restoring the trial court’s conviction and sentencing the accused to 7 years of imprisonment under Section 376 of the IPC (rape).

Court's Concern:

The Supreme Court expressed sorrow over the fact that the victim and her family had to endure nearly four decades of uncertainty before this horrific chapter of their lives could be closed.

High Court Bench Hear Case Without Chief Justice’s Authorisation Merely Based On Consent of Parties: Supreme Court

a. Case-

• Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited vs. GRSE Limited Workmens Union & Ors.

b. Date of Order-

• February 25, 2025

c. Bench-

• Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Supreme Court's Judgment:

The Supreme Court recently set aside a judgment passed by a Calcutta High Court Division Bench, highlighting the principle that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. The Court emphasized that any bench hearing a case without the Chief Justice’s authorization violates judicial propriety and the roster system.

Issue with the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench:

The case concerned an intra-court appeal against a Single Bench’s order to de-list a writ petition related to a compassionate appointment. The Division Bench heard the case based on the consent of the parties, despite lacking authorization from the Chief Justice to do so. The Division Bench proceeded without jurisdiction under the roster system.

Background of the Case:

• The Respondent filed a writ petition before the Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court regarding a compassionate appointment.
• The Single Bench decided to de-list the writ petition, and the Respondent appealed against this decision to the Division Bench.
• The Division Bench, based on the parties' consent, heard the appeal and granted relief to the Respondent, directing the Appellant to grant compassionate appointments.

Supreme Court's Ruling:

• The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench's assumption of jurisdiction was without authority, as it did not have the Chief Justice's authorization to hear the case.
• The Court emphasized that judicial proceedings conducted by a bench not assigned by the Chief Justice were violative of judicial discipline and the roster system.
• The Court referred to precedents like Sohan Lal Baid v. State of West Bengal (1990), State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998), and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2018) to support its decision.

Court’s Reasoning:

• The Supreme Court stated that consent from the parties cannot confer jurisdiction to a bench that is not authorized to hear the case.
• The Court highlighted that a judicial order based on consent which violates the Writ Rules and the Chief Justice's authority could not give the appellate court jurisdiction.
• The Court concluded that the Division Bench’s decision was void and without jurisdiction.

Outcome:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the High Court.
• The Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for consideration and disposal.
• The Court emphasized that the case should be heard within six months, given the delay in granting the compassionate appointment.

Compassionate Appointment Context:

• The respondents had been waiting for a decision on their compassionate appointment, and the appellants had not proceeded with the appointment, causing a delayed resolution of the matter.

Final Order: The Supreme Court ordered the restoration of the case to its original files and requested expedited consideration due to the long delay in the compassionate appointment process.