The Supreme Court observed that one year as a judge equals five years as a lawyer while examining Article 233 on District Judge appointments under the Bar quota.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday engaged in a crucial debate on the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of District Judges. The issue was
Whether judicial officers who have already practiced as advocates before joining service can be appointed against the Bar quota for District Judge posts.
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma, and K Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa & Ors.
During the hearing, Justice Sundresh underlined the weight of practical experience gained by judicial officers:
“One year of judgeship equals to five years of being a lawyer. That is the volume of work.”
This observation sparked a deeper discussion on whether service judges should be recognized under the eligibility criteria for District Judge appointments.
Article 233(2) states:
“A person shall only be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader, and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.”
The controversy centers on whether this provision excludes judicial officers who earlier practiced law but are currently in service.
Arguments
In Favor of Inclusion of Judicial Officers:
Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan argued for a purposive interpretation of Article 233, cautioning that any restrictive reading would make parts of the provision redundant.
- On redundancy:
“Any construction of the statute which makes the provision redundant cannot be accepted.”
- On inclusion of service judges:
“If the qualification is restricted, service judges would be entirely excluded. That cannot be the correct position.”
He also cited the Shetty Commission Report, which had noted the frustration of civil judges being excluded from Higher Judicial Service opportunities.
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia relied on the phrase “has been”, stressing that it refers to experience, not necessarily continuing practice at the time of application.
“The phrase ‘has been,’ unless it ends with a participle like ‘being,’ refers to a situation that may have existed in the past but need not necessarily be continuing in the present.”
In Opposition:
On the other side, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar insisted on a literal reading of the Constitution:
- On continuous practice:
“The requirement is that an advocate or pleader should be in practice for the immediate past seven years. The experience must be as a practising advocate, not in service.”
He argued that the framers deliberately fixed seven years as a “legislative period of maturity.”
Senior Advocate V Giri also highlighted that Article 233(2) contemplates only a quota for advocates, not for service judges:
“There is no quota which is contemplated beyond what is expressly stated.”
Bench’s Observations
CJI BR Gavai cautioned against importing requirements beyond the constitutional text.
“You cannot import rules to interpret the Constitution.”
On eligibility, the Chief Justice noted that prima facie it must be assessed on the date of application, not on the date of appointment.
The Bench also rejected an intervention application filed by judicial service aspirants, remarking
“No, no. Just because live-streaming is there you all keep filing these IAs.”
The Bench has not delivered its final verdict yet. The hearing will continue today.
Case Title:
Rejanish KV v. K Deepa & Ors
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3947/2020
Read Order:
