The Supreme Court of India in Abhimeet Sinha vs. Patna High Court upheld the requirement of minimum viva voce marks in judicial service recruitment. Learn how this decision impacts merit, fairness, and recruitment transparency in Bihar and Gujarat.

Introduction

In a significant ruling affecting judicial service recruitment across India, the Supreme Court of India upheld the legality of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce (interview) for the appointment of judicial officers in Bihar and Gujarat. This judgment reinforces the principle that high written exam scores alone are not sufficient to determine merit, highlighting the critical role of interviews in evaluating candidates holistically.

Background of the Case

This case consolidated multiple petitions challenging the recruitment process for District Judge posts in Bihar and Gujarat:

• Bihar Judicial Services (2015): Required a 20% minimum in viva voce.

• Gujarat Judicial Services: Mandated 40% minimum in interview.

Petitioners argued these requirements were arbitrary, violated the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, and conflicted with the Shetty Commission‘s recommendations and the All India Judges Association case.

Key Legal Issues Raised

1. Are minimum viva voce marks consistent with Shetty Commission and All India Judges’ case (2002)?

2. Do these rules violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

3. Was the mark moderation process in Bihar fair?

4. Were Gujarat’s amended rules invalid due to non-consultation with the Public Service Commission under Article 234?

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the minimum viva voce thresholds, stating that the recruitment criteria were constitutional, rational, and non-discriminatory.

Viva Voce Cut-Offs Are Constitutionally Valid

The Bench found no violation of Articles 14 or 16, affirming that interviews are essential for assessing the communication skills, temperament, and suitability of candidates for judicial roles.

“While written exams assess knowledge, interviews reveal a candidate’s character and judicial temperament,” the court stated.

Moderation in Bihar Was Legitimate

The Bihar High Court’s moderation and aggregation methods were ruled to be objective and within legal boundaries.

Gujarat Rules Hold Even Without PSC Consultation

Despite the absence of consultation with the Public Service Commission, the High Court of Gujarat was found to have the constitutional authority under Article 234 to independently design judicial recruitment rules.

Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principles)

• Merit Beyond Marks: Judicial merit must encompass both intellectual and personal attributes.

• Interview Cut-Offs Are Fair: Reasonable thresholds are valid tools to ensure competency in judiciary.

• High Court Autonomy Upheld: The decision reinforces the autonomy of High Courts in setting judicial recruitment standards.

 Obiter Dicta (Judicial Observations)

• Codification Needed: Moderation processes should be clearly codified to avoid ambiguity and ensure transparency.

• Improving Interview Transparency: High Courts must work toward enhancing transparency in the viva voce stage to eliminate perceptions of bias.

Court Directions

• Recruitment rules should explicitly define mark moderation mechanisms.

• Viva voce processes must be transparent and standardized across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

This ruling in Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. vs. High Court of Patna strengthens the principle that judicial recruitment must evaluate a candidate holistically—not just by academic excellence, but by interpersonal and analytical skills essential for judicial office. Upholding viva voce cut-offs ensures merit-based, fair, and constitutionally sound recruitment while preserving judicial independence.