Appraisal Uprising

Lower judicial officers seek reforms in their evaluation process, alleging manipulation, mismanagement and lack of transparency.

- Soni Mishra

On October 6, 2016, the Supreme Court pulled up the Delhi High Court over a plea filed by Barkha Gupta, a judicial officer from a lower court in the capital. She had challenged the inferior grading she was given in her Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs are used to decide on promotion and transfer); Gupta was given a ‘C’, which stood for ‘integrity doubtful’. The two-judge Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, said the remarks recorded in her ACRs between 1999 and 2004 were “wholly unsustainable in law”. Even as she was given a ‘C’ grading, she was continued in service and promoted as additional district judge. The grading was given to her, as is the practice in Delhi’s judicial setup, by a full bench of the High Court.

In June 2015, Additional District and Sessions Judge Sujata Kohli moved Delhi High Court, challenging the “non-transparent” criteria adopted by the High Court. Kohli, who joined the Delhi Judicial Services in 2002, standing third in the merit list, was agitated over being ignored for promotion and her juniors getting promoted as district and sessions judges. She said that the High Court had repeatedly changed the criteria for promotion and not informed judicial officers about it.

In 2009, the Delhi High Court had laid down that a judicial officer must have at least one A rating in the ACR in five years to be considered for promotion. It was changed in 2010 and again in 2011 to make it five As in five years.

“The HC has not given due weight to seniority, which was a criterion when petitioner was appointed/ selected to the cadre of district judge. Unfortunately, over the last few years, the HC has been continuously altering the criteria for promotion... which are not even communicated to the additional district judges,” Kohli said in her petition.