In a landmark decision reverberating through legal corridors, the Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, elucidated the critical role of interviews in evaluating candidates for judicial roles. Upholding the constitutionality of minimum qualifying marks in viva voce tests for District Judiciary appointments in Bihar and Gujarat, the Bench underscored that a high score in written exams alone doesn’t suffice to gauge a candidate’s merit.
In a statement resonating with sagacity, the Court articulated that while written exams gauge knowledge, interviews unveil character, passion, and potential. This profound insight emphasizes the multifaceted nature of judicial responsibilities, transcending mere academic prowess.
Critics contended that setting minimum marks in interviews disadvantages candidates excelling in written tests. However, the Court astutely rebutted this, questioning whether high scores in written exams truly delineate merit. It pointed out the influence of social, economic, and cultural factors on performance, stressing the need to assess candidates holistically.
Moreover, the Court astutely acknowledged the inherent biases favoring candidates from certain backgrounds in interview settings. This acknowledgment underscores the imperative for fairness and inclusivity in the judicial selection process.
Ultimately, the Court’s verdict resonated with reason and foresight, affirming the nexus between minimum marks and the objective of appointing well-rounded judicial officers. It dispelled notions of arbitrariness or disproportionality, asserting the importance of a nuanced approach in evaluating candidates’ suitability for judicial roles.
The ruling marks a significant stride towards a more equitable and robust judicial selection process, fostering a judiciary reflective of diverse talents and perspectives.
