Today, 12th August, The Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai, has sent to a Constitution Bench the key question of whether a judicial officer with over 7 years’ Bar experience can be appointed as District Judge under the Bar Vacancy.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench the legal question of “whether a judicial officer with over 7 years experience at the Bar can be appointed as a District Judge under the Bar vacancy.”
A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria passed the order for reference.
The bench stated that the two issues involved significant questions of law regarding the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which pertains to the appointment of district judges.
The bench announced,
“We refer the aforesaid 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,”
The Court said the matter also involves examining whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge should be determined at the time of application or at the time of actual appointment.
The dispute arose after a High Court ruling, which the Supreme Court had stayed in 2021.
The Court will examine when eligibility should be determined, whether:
- At the time of submitting the application,
- At the time of actual appointment, or
- At both stages.
This issue hinges on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which states:
“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 pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.”
The phrase “not already in service” and the requirement of “being an advocate” at the relevant time have been subjects of judicial scrutiny, particularly in light of prior Supreme Court decisions.
The appeal stems from a decision by the Kerala High Court, which set aside the appointment of Rejanish K.V. as a District Judge.
- Before Judicial Service: Rejanish was an active advocate with over seven years of experience at the Bar.
- Dual Applications: He applied for the District Judge position under the Bar quota and also for the Munsiff-Magistrate role in the subordinate judiciary.
- Judicial Appointment: While the selection process for the District Judge was underway, Rejanish was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate on December 28, 2017.
- District Judge Appointment: He was later offered the position of District Judge, relieved from his duties in the subordinate judiciary on August 21, 2019, and took charge as District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram on August 24, 2019.
Another candidate, K. Deepa, contested his appointment on the grounds that, At the time the District Judge appointment order was issued, Rejanish was not a practising advocate but a serving judicial officer (Munsiff).
The petitioner had been an active lawyer with seven years of Bar experience when he submitted his application for the district judge position.
Case Title: REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020
Read Attachment