The Supreme Court of India has agreed to scrutinize the permissibility of establishing minimum qualifying scores in interview rounds for judicial service recruitment. This decision arises amidst broader discussions concerning the efficacy and fairness of the current judicial selection process.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, is currently reviewing a plea filed by Ajay Kumar Shyamkishor. The petitioner contests the viva voce cut-off applied during a judicial service recruitment, arguing that despite scoring well in the written component, his inability to meet the interview threshold adversely affected his candidacy.
The Court acknowledged that another case addressing overarching issues in judicial service recruitment is under the consideration of a three-judge Bench. The Bench suggested that Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, could contribute by compiling comparative data on the interview cut-off practices employed by various states.
“We are open to examining the issue,” stated CJI Kant. “However, as the larger judicial services matter is already pending, we encourage Mr. Bhushan to assist by gathering comparative information and creating a chart detailing the practices followed across different states.”
Advocate Bhushan informed the Court that the petitioner achieved the third-highest marks in the written examination but received 18 out of 50 in the interview, falling short of the 20-mark minimum requirement. Arguing that the interview constituted 20 percent of the total marks with a qualifying threshold of 40 percent, Bhushan referenced the Kothari Commission’s recommendations, which suggested that interview marks should ideally be limited to 12.5 percent, especially when written scores are high.
Bhushan also pointed out that various Supreme Court Benches have delivered conflicting opinions on whether interview cut-offs should be enforced at all. He highlighted that the low number of candidates ultimately selected points to systemic flaws in the recruitment process.
“In at least three cases, this Court has noted that if only a quarter of the vacancies are filled, it indicates a flaw in the selection process,” he argued.
Justice Bagchi noted that interview panelists are not informed of the candidates’ written scores, though Bhushan clarified this was not the main issue being contested. The Justice also discussed the employment implications, emphasizing that recruitment must maintain a minimum standard due to the large number of law graduates participating in these examinations.
CJI Surya Kant identified two concerns: candidates from different regions performing poorly in interviews due to language barriers, and whether India’s candidate pool is robust enough to sustain the current selection framework. He also highlighted the financial implications of the process.
“Significant public funds are allocated to these examinations. If the outcomes are minimal, this aspect must also be considered,” he observed.
