Judicial Ambitions, Empty Courtrooms: Competitive Exam Leaves Delhi’s Trial Courts Facing Disruptions
Delhi’s district judiciary is witnessing an unusual administrative challenge as preparations for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) examination have led to a noticeable increase in the number of judicial officers taking leave, resulting in temporary disruptions across several trial courts. The situation has drawn attention to the growing tension between judges’ legitimate career aspirations and the need for uninterrupted justice delivery at the grassroots level.
The issue stems from the Delhi High Court’s notification issued on July 1, 2026, inviting applications for 27 vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service through direct recruitment, with the preliminary examination scheduled for July 26. In the weeks leading up to the examination, judicial officers across major district court complexes—including Tis Hazari, Saket, Rohini, Dwarka, Patiala House and Karkardooma—have availed earned leave, medical leave and child care leave, with many leave periods ending just before the examination date.
The trend follows two significant Supreme Court judgments delivered in 2025 that expanded promotional opportunities for serving judicial officers. In Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa, the Constitution Bench held that judicial officers who had completed seven years of practice as advocates before joining the judicial service are eligible to compete for direct recruitment as District Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution. Separately, in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the Court increased the quota for promotions through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), creating faster avenues for career advancement within the subordinate judiciary.
While these decisions have been widely welcomed as measures to promote merit-based progression, they have also produced unintended administrative consequences. As many serving judges prepare simultaneously for competitive examinations, district courts experience shortages of presiding officers, affecting the day-to-day functioning of trial courts that already handle large volumes of pending civil and criminal matters.
In the absence of regular judges, pending cases are transferred to designated “link judges.” Although the arrangement ensures that urgent matters such as fresh remand proceedings and emergency applications are addressed, link judges often manage their own heavy dockets simultaneously. As a result, contested bail applications, civil trials, witness examinations, cross-examinations and detailed hearings are frequently adjourned because substitute judges lack sufficient time to undertake substantive hearings in addition to their regular workload.
The consequences are felt most directly by litigants and lawyers. Witnesses who travel long distances, undertrial prisoners awaiting bail hearings, and parties attending civil proceedings often return without meaningful progress in their cases. Advocates also face difficulties explaining repeated adjournments to clients, particularly in matters where hearings had been scheduled months in advance.
Legal observers note that the issue may not remain confined to Delhi. Following the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 233, serving judicial officers are now eligible to participate in Higher Judicial Service examinations conducted by multiple States. As other High Courts announce recruitment drives, similar patterns of concentrated leave and temporary courtroom vacancies could emerge across jurisdictions unless administrative safeguards are introduced.
Experts have suggested several possible reforms, including scheduling higher judicial service examinations during court vacations, creating dedicated study leave policies with staggered implementation, appointing additional ad hoc judicial officers during recruitment periods, and strengthening the link judge system to minimise disruption. Such measures, they argue, would allow judicial officers to pursue professional advancement while ensuring that litigants do not bear the cost of delayed justice.
The developments underscore a broader challenge confronting India’s judiciary: balancing merit-based career progression with the constitutional imperative of timely justice. As recruitment opportunities expand and judicial officers increasingly compete for higher positions, courts may need to redesign administrative practices so that professional aspirations do not inadvertently slow the functioning of the country’s already overburdened trial courts.
