SC reserves verdict on judicial officers’ eligibility for district judge posts under Bar quota

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench on Tuesday concluded hearings and reserved its judgment on whether judicial officers, who had already completed seven years of practice as advocates before joining the judicial service, can claim eligibility for district judge vacancies reserved for the advocates practising at the Bar.

The matter turns on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which outlines qualifications for appointment to the district judiciary.

Advertisement

Article 233(2) provides that only “a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State” is eligible to be appointed a district judge, provided he or she has been an advocate or pleader with not less than seven years’ practice and is recommended by the High Court.

The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard arguments over three days—September 23, 24 and 25—before reserving its verdict. The larger bench was constituted following an August 12 reference from a three-judge bench, which noted that the 2020 ruling in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi might require reconsideration.

In the 2020 decision, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran (both since retired) had ruled that only practising advocates with at least seven years of continuous practice, and not already in judicial service, could be directly recruited as district judges against the Bar quota. It further clarified that members of the subordinate judiciary could enter the district judge cadre only through promotion or limited departmental examination.

During the proceedings that concluded on Thursday, the Constitution Bench considered four interrelated questions: whether a judicial officer who had accumulated seven years’ practice at the Bar before joining service could still qualify under the Bar quota; whether eligibility must be reckoned at the stage of application or appointment or both; whether Article 233(2) prescribes a distinct eligibility bar for those already in judicial service; and whether a combined period of practice and service adding up to seven years could suffice for eligibility.

Senior advocates Arvind Datar, Jayant Bhushan, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Maneka Guruswamy and others, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the earlier ruling in Dheeraj Mor was unduly restrictive. They argued that the phrase “not already in service” should not disable those who had already satisfied the seven-year practice requirement prior to joining judicial service. They also contended that the seven-year practice rule could not be interpreted to mean continuous, unbroken practice.

Opposing this line, senior advocates C.U. Singh, Nidhesh Gupta, Vijay Hansaria, and others defended the settled interpretation. They maintained that Article 233(2) was intended exclusively for practising advocates, and those in judicial service were categorically excluded from applying under the Bar quota. They stressed that the interpretation had been consistently followed for more than sixty years and was therefore protected by the principle of stare decisis. According to them, the requirement of seven years meant sustained practice at the Bar, not a mix of practice and service.

The reference arose from an appeal against a Kerala High Court ruling that had struck down the appointment of Rejanish K.V. as a district judge. Rejanish had applied for the post with over seven years at the Bar but, during the selection process, was appointed as a munsiff magistrate. By the time his district judge appointment materialised, he was in judicial service. The High Court held, relying on Dheeraj Mor, that he was ineligible as he was no longer a practising advocate at the time of appointment.

The Division Bench of the High Court, while affirming this position, also recognised that several district judge appointments across different states may have been made under rules inconsistent with Dheeraj Mor. It therefore certified the issue for appeal before the Supreme Court, noting its national significance.

The apex court stayed the High Court judgment in 2021, paving the way for the present Constitution Bench reference.