Subjective Assessment of Judicial Officer Judgments in Promotion Processes: Non‑Interference Principle

Introduction

This commentary examines the landmark decision of the Gujarat High Court in MehulKumar Kishorsinh Kher v. The Honourable High Court of Gujarat (C/SCA/2543/2025), delivered on 27 February 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi. The petition was filed by a Principal Senior Civil Judge, aggrieved by the evaluation of his judgments as part of the four‑component screening process for promotion to the post of District Judge. The central issues were: (1) whether the Court may interfere with the subjective assessment of judicial opinions submitted for promotional evaluation; and (2) whether a uniform moderation mechanism—akin to written‑exam answer‑script moderation—should apply to judgment assessment.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding:

The evaluation of judgments rendered by Civil Judges is inherently subjective and exercises judicial discretion.
Precedents mandating moderation in written competitive exams (e.g., Sujasha Mukherji, Sanjay Singh, Pranav Verma) are inapposite, as promotional judgment appraisal does not involve common question papers or thousands of answer‑scripts.
Interference in the assessor‑evaluator’s exercise of discretion would undermine the sanctity and integrity of the promotion process.
Entries in Annual Confidential Reports cannot substitute for or directly influence the mark allocation in judgment appraisal, as they operate in separate evaluative realms.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The petitioner relied on three Supreme Court precedents to urge adoption of a moderation mechanism:

Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta (2015 11 SCC 395) – directed appointment of a moderator to ensure uniformity in assessing thousands of written exam scripts.
Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2007 3 SCC 720) – reinforced consistency in evaluation and the concept of moderator intervention in large‑scale testing.
Pranav Verma v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2020 15 SCC 377) – extended the principle of moderation in classical written competitive examinations.

The High Court distinguished these authorities on the ground that promotional judgment assessment involves unique judicial opinions, varying factual matrices, and different evaluators—not a single set of questions or mass‑scale paper checking. It further cited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta (2023 LiveLaw SC 131) to underscore that descriptive answers (and by analogy, judgments) are subjectively assessed and not ordinarily re‑openable by courts.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning anchored on two pillars:

Subjectivity of Judicial Writing: Every judgment tendered by a Civil Judge reflects individual legal reasoning, factual narrative, and interpretive approach. Unlike standardized answer‑sheets, no two judgments are identical, making any uniform moderation impractical.
Judicial Discretion and Finality: The assessor‑evaluator’s exercise of judgment marks rests on their judicial discretion. In the absence of explicit statutory provision for re‑evaluation or moderation in promotional procedures, courts must refrain from substituting their subjective view for that of the appointed evaluators.

Thus, any attempt to impose a moderator or re‑evaluate judgments risks judicial overreach and would dilute the innate discretion entrusted to the High Court’s appointed examiners.

Impact

This decision establishes a clear precedent that promotional assessment of judicial opinions is immune from intervention by moderation mechanisms designed for conventional written exams. Future promotional exercises for judicial officers must:

Acknowledge the subjective nature of judgment appraisal and delimit court scrutiny to procedural fairness, not merit review.
Ensure transparency in appointing qualified assessor‑evaluators and in disclosing general marking criteria, while safeguarding evaluator independence.

Going forward, this ruling will guide High Courts and judicial councils in structuring promotion regulations, emphasizing procedural safeguards over substantive re‑appraisal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Subjective Assessment: Marking based on an individual evaluator’s judgment rather than purely objective or numerical criteria.
Moderation Mechanism: A process where a second examiner or moderator reviews marks to ensure consistency across different evaluators.
Annual Confidential Report (ACR): A yearly performance appraisal of judicial officers, recording qualities like legal knowledge, integrity, and case disposal rates.
Writ of Mandamus: A judicial order compelling a public authority to perform a public duty.
Writ of Certiorari: A judicial remedy to quash a decision taken without jurisdiction or in violation of the law of procedure.

Conclusion

The Gujarat High Court’s judgment in MehulKumar Kishorsinh Kher crystallizes the principle that promotional assessment of judicial writings is a domain of subjective discretion, beyond the reach of moderation mandates designed for mass‑scale written examinations. By reaffirming non‑interference in evaluative discretion, this decision preserves the integrity of judicial promotions and provides a clear roadmap for future recruitment frameworks. Courts will safeguard only procedural propriety, leaving substantive judgment appraisal to the appointed evaluators.