Over 200 Kerala lawyers have opposed the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing judicial officers with seven years’ combined experience to be appointed as District Judges under the Bar quota. They claim the decision weakens the Bar’s exclusive constitutional right under Article 233(2).
Lawyers in Kerala have passed a resolution before the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) opposing a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows judicial officers who had worked as lawyers for seven years before joining the judicial service to be appointed as District Judges under the Bar quota.
This move came after the Supreme Court’s decision in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa & Ors., where the Court held that judicial officers with seven years of combined experience as lawyers and judges are eligible for appointment as District Judges.
The resolution, signed by 201 practising lawyers, says the decision has
“diluted the process of direct recruitment from the Bar to the post of District Judge” which was, until now, “reserved exclusively for practising advocates under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.”
The lawyers explained that
“the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting Article 233(2), equated judicial experience with experience at the Bar and held that a judicial officer possessing seven years of combined experience as an advocate and as a judicial officer was eligible for such direct recruitment.”
They argued that the Constitution clearly separates two different ways of appointing District Judges — one through promotion of serving judicial officers, and the other through direct recruitment from practising advocates.
According to them,
“A plain reading of Article 233 makes this distinction unmistakably clear. Clause (1) deals with appointments and promotions from among judicial officers in service, while clause (2) specifically provides for appointment of persons ‘not already in the service of the Union or of the State’ who have been advocates or pleaders for at least seven years, upon recommendation by the High Court.”
The resolution pointed out that since the Supreme Court’s decision in the All India Judges’ Association case in 2002, 25 percent of the posts of District Judges were reserved for advocates who had continuously practised law for at least seven years.
The lawyers stated that the ruling in Rejanish KV has disrupted this balance and
“undermines the independence of the Bar by destabilising the 75:25 recruitment ratio between the judicial service and the Bar.”
The lawyers also referred to an observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 146 of the judgment, where the Bench said that
“the experience judicial officers gain while working as judges is much greater than that gained while working as advocates.”
The resolution stated that this proposition
“diminishes the constitutional role and contribution of the Bar.”
It further added that
“the decision has profound implications for advocates across India, significantly curtailing opportunities for career advancement and diminishing the Bar’s role in the judicial system.”
The resolution also claimed that the judgment has already caused
“practical difficulties for ongoing recruitments.”
Based on these concerns, the lawyers have urged the KHCAA’s Executive Committee to take steps by filing an appropriate review or curative petition before the Supreme Court in the Rajinish KV case.
They have sought reconsideration of the interpretation of Article 233(2) and restoration of the principle that
“25 percent of District Judge posts be reserved exclusively for eligible practising advocates.”
The resolution requested the KHCAA to coordinate with other Bar Associations across India so that the issue can be presented collectively before the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the lawyers have also asked the KHCAA to approach the Supreme Court seeking permission to allow the ongoing recruitment process for the Kerala district judiciary to continue without interruption.
Click Here to Read More Reports On District Judge Appointments
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
