Today, On 9th October, Supreme Court rules that judicial officers who have completed 7 years of practice at the Bar before joining service are now eligible for appointment as District Judges. Minimum age for application set at 35 years.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that a judicial officer with seven years of experience as a lawyer before entering the judicial service is eligible for appointment as a district judge under the Bar quota.
This decision was rendered by a bench consisting, Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma, and K Vinod Chandran, is reviewing 30 petitions that could significantly impact judicial recruitment nationwide.
The Court set-aside its 2020 decision in the case of Dheeraj Mor, which had previously prohibited judicial officers from applying under the Bar quota.
The ruling mandates that state governments, in consultation with the High Courts, must establish regulations for the direct recruitment of judicial officers or current candidates to the district judge positions.
Additionally, the Court determined that a judicial officer with a combined experience of seven years as both a judge and a lawyer would also qualify for direct recruitment to the district judiciary.
The bench is analysing the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of district judges.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) said,
“There are two previous judgments, Dayal and Chandramohan, which were not adequately considered. The judgment is structured into multiple chapters, emphasizing that statutory interpretation must align contextually, not in isolation. A holistic reading of Article 233 shows that while clause 2 specifies qualifications for in-service candidates, it does not detail qualifications for others. The entire article must be read together to understand the intent of its first part. The interpretation must be flexible and purposive, not rigid, any reading that unduly limits competition will be rejected.”
The Supreme Court clarified that the state government must formulate clear rules regarding eligibility for in-service candidates.
The CJI noted,
“The state government must frame rules specifying eligibility for in-service candidates, allowing those with a combined 7 years of experience as judicial officers and advocates to qualify. The claim that Article 233(2) reserves a 25% quota for direct recruits has been rejected. The Court held that the doctrine of stare decisis cannot uphold incorrect law and recognized that members of the judicial service had faced injustice. The ruling will apply from the date of the judgment, except in cases where the High Court has passed interim orders.”
In a further clarification, the CJI added,
“Judicial officers who had already completed 7 years of practice at the Bar before joining service will be eligible for appointment as District Judges. Eligibility will be assessed at the time of selection. To maintain a level playing field, the minimum age for applying as a District Judge or Additional Judge will be 35 years on the date of application.”
Justice MM Sundresh, highlighting the broader constitutional perspective, remarked,
“Both qualifications under Article 233 are just gateways to judicial service. While interpreting the Constitution, we must keep its basic structure in mind. Interpreting Article 233(2) only for advocates or practitioners would violate Article 14 and stressed that to ensure the judiciary remains of the highest quality, we need to get the best talent and not letting a part of people compete would be unfair.”
Justice MM Sundresh expressed a dissenting opinion from the majority.
Accompanying the review petitions were multiple writ petitions and special leave petitions requesting a ruling that judicial officers with seven years of Bar experience prior to their appointment as judicial officers should also be eligible for district judge appointments via direct recruitment under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
This legal provision stipulates that a person not currently in the service of the Union or a State may be appointed as a District Judge only if they have at least seven years of experience as an advocate or pleader and are recommended by the High Court.
(i) Whether a judicial officer who has completed seven years at the Bar and is recruited for subordinate judicial services is entitled to appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy?
(ii) Should eligibility for appointment as a District Judge be assessed only at the time of appointment, at the time of application, or at both?
(iii) Is there any eligibility criteria for a person already in judicial service under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being appointed as District Judge?
(iv) Can a person who has served as a Civil Judge for seven years, or has a combined experience of seven years as an Advocate and Civil Judge, be eligible for appointment as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution of India?
Earlier, On August 12, a three-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice, referred these questions to a five-judge Constitution bench for consideration.
The top court made this referral while reviewing an appeal against a Kerala High Court ruling that overturned the appointment of a district judge on the grounds that he was not a practicing advocate at the time of his appointment and was part of the judicial service.
The petitioner was a practicing lawyer with seven years of experience at the Bar when he applied for the district judge position.
Case Title: REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020
Read Attachment