The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on whether judicial officers with seven years’ prior Bar experience can apply for district judge posts under the Bar quota. The ruling will clarify the scope of Article 233 and impact judicial recruitment nationwide.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on a very important issue related to the appointment of district judges.
The question before the court is whether judicial officers, who had already completed seven years of practice as advocates before joining the judiciary, can also be considered for district judge posts under the quota reserved for members of the Bar.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai and comprising Justices M M Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S C Sharma and K Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments in as many as 30 petitions. These cases are seen as having wide implications for judicial recruitment across India.
The Bench is interpreting Article 233 of the Constitution, which deals with the appointment of district judges. Article 233 clearly states:
“Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any state shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.”
It further adds that,
“A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed 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.”
On September 12, the CJI-led bench had agreed to examine whether the combined experience—first as a practising advocate and later as a judicial officer—can together be considered for meeting the eligibility criteria.
However, the CJI gave a word of caution, stating that there should not be an interpretation that would allow a situation where
“a person with just two years’ practice becomes eligible.”
Normally, posts of Additional District Judges (ADJs), who form part of the higher judicial service, are filled in two ways. One is through promotions from the lower judiciary.
The other is through direct recruitment of practising lawyers with at least seven years of experience at the Bar.
Now the dispute is whether judicial officers who earlier practised as lawyers can also apply under the direct recruitment quota meant for advocates, and whether their combined experience at the Bar and in service should count toward eligibility.
Earlier, on August 12, a three-judge bench led by the CJI had referred these legal questions to a larger Constitution Bench.
The court had then said,
“We refer the …issues for consideration of a constitution bench of five Judges of this court. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for obtaining appropriate orders.”
This reference came while the top court was hearing an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgment. The High Court had set aside the appointment of a district judge on the ground that the candidate was not a practising advocate at the time of appointment, since he was already serving in the judiciary.
The petitioner in that case had earlier worked as a practising lawyer with more than seven years of experience at the Bar before submitting his application for the post of district judge.
The Supreme Court has now reserved its verdict, and its decision will settle the law on whether prior Bar experience combined with judicial service can be counted for eligibility under Article 233.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Caste Survey
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
