Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned why an advocate’s past professional income should affect eligibility for appointment as a civil judge during a Supreme Court hearing on Tamil Nadu Judicial Service recruitment. Remarking, “Please tell me, which advocate discloses the true income in his income tax returns?” she drew laughter from lawyers in the courtroom.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned why an advocate’s past professional income should be treated as a ground to bar them from appointment as a civil judge.
The Supreme Court is presently hearing an appeal concerning a candidate whose appointment to the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service was cancelled following a verification exercise that reportedly found issues with his financial disclosures.
During hearing prompting laughter from lawyers in the courtroom, she asked,
“Please tell me, which advocate discloses the true income in his income tax returns?”
The case before the Supreme Court involves a legal challenge to the criteria adopted for selecting civil judges. It relates to an advocate whose provisional appointment to the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service was cancelled in November 2022 after a post-selection verification process raised concerns about his professional background and financial records.
During the hearing on Monday, a bench consisting of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan examined whether the candidate’s declared income is a meaningful measure of integrity. The candidate had initially declared an annual professional income of Rs.4.5 lakh.
The court observed that examining such income figures at the recruitment stage may be misguided, with Justice Nagarathna remarking that income shown in tax filings is often not a true reflection of a lawyer’s actual earnings.
The principal issue in the dispute concerns what should qualify as a legitimate basis for disqualifying a person for judicial office. While the State contended that cancellation was linked to particular financial transactions that cast doubt on the candidate’s character, the bench appeared unconvinced about the significance attached to those financial details.
Justice Nagarathna drew a distinction between serious matters such as an undisclosed criminal history and concerns connected to professional earnings, indicating that the latter may not, by itself, be a decisive obstacle to judicial appointment.
The controversy traces back to a 2024 decision of the Madras High Court. In that ruling, the High Court upheld the cancellation of the candidate’s appointment, observing that successfully clearing the recruitment process does not confer an absolute or permanent right to the post if adverse findings surface during the subsequent verification stage.
The advocate has now approached the Supreme Court, seeking to challenge the High Court’s decision and obtain clarification on the extent of the High Court’s power to examine a candidate’s private financial history after selection through the regular recruitment examination.
The Supreme Court has directed that additional information be placed before it in the next hearing. In particular, the bench will consider whether any separate proceedings have been initiated against the candidate’s spouse, who is currently serving as a judicial officer.
The Court also intends to assess whether the objections raised against the candidate were grounded in substantial concerns or, as Justice Nagarathna suggested, were influenced by external pressures that are sometimes encountered during the judicial nomination process.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on August 10, when the Court will further evaluate the balance between thorough background verification and the professional standing of legal practitioners.