The Supreme Court, while noting that larger questions concerning judicial appointments and recruitment were already pending before a three-judge Bench, recently observed that it may examine the broader issue of prescribing minimum qualifying marks in viva voce examinations for judicial service recruitment.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made these observations while hearing a petition challenging the Maharashtra Higher Judicial Service recruitment process. The petitioners argued that despite performing well in the written examination, they were denied selection after failing to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the interview round.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the issue was not confined to the present recruitment but reflected a recurring structural concern in judicial service examinations across the country. He pointed out that although 42 vacancies were notified in the Maharashtra Higher Judicial Service recruitment, only 13 candidates were eventually selected, despite 2,751 candidates appearing for the preliminary examination and 421 qualifying for the mains.
Bhushan highlighted the case of one petitioner who allegedly secured the third-highest marks in the written examination but received only 18 out of 50 in the viva voce, falling short of the minimum qualifying requirement of 20 marks. As a result, the candidate was excluded despite obtaining higher aggregate marks than at least one selected candidate.
He argued that Supreme Court precedents on the issue were inconsistent, with some judgments disapproving minimum interview cut-offs and others permitting them. Referring to the recommendations of the Kothari Commission and verdicts, such as Ashok Yadav, Bhushan contended that interview weightage should remain limited and that prescribing minimum qualifying marks in viva voce creates room for arbitrariness.
Bhushan further raised concerns over the low number of appointments in judicial service recruitments despite large numbers of advertised vacancies, calling it indicative of systemic flaws in the selection process.
CJI Kant acknowledged the larger concern, observing that considerable public resources were spent on recruitment examinations and that disproportionately low selection outcomes warranted closer scrutiny.
The Bench also referred to concerns noted on the administrative side regarding candidates potentially facing disadvantages in interviews due to regional or language barriers, though it clarified that such issues did not directly arise in the present matter.
While observing that it was not unwilling to examine the larger issue, the Court noted that broader questions concerning judicial service recruitment were already pending before a three-judge Bench. It asked Bhushan to assist by compiling comparative data on recruitment practices across States, particularly regarding interview cut-offs and selection patterns.
The post Supreme Court seeks comparative data from States on minimum marks for Judicial Service interviews appeared first on India Legal.