E-Paper
Milestone SC judgment to spur distt judiciary reform
The Supreme Court ruled that serving judicial officers with 7 years as advocates can apply for district judge posts, promoting inclusivity and merit.
In a judgment that could fundamentally alter the landscape of district judiciary recruitment across the country, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that serving judicial officers who have previously practised as advocates for seven years are eligible to apply for district judge posts under the quota reserved for the Bar, declaring that their exclusion would be “discriminatory” and detrimental to the quality of judicial service. The court further held that to ensure a level playing field, serving judges can also apply under the Bar quota if they have at least seven years of combined experience as a judicial officer and an advocate.
A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, and comprising justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran, unanimously ruled that interpreting Article 233(2) to bar serving judges from competing for direct recruitment would undermine both efficiency and fairness in the judiciary.
Deciding a batch of petitions that highlighted conflicting interpretations by various high courts and the Supreme Court’s own earlier rulings, the bench underlined that the ruling is meant to promote excellence rather than procedural rigidity: “In order to promote efficiency in the cadre of district judges, young talented meritorious judicial officers should not be denied an opportunity.”
The judgment, delivered through separate but concurring opinions by CJI Gavai and Justice Sundresh, will operate prospectively from the date of pronouncement.
The judgment is expected to significantly broaden the pool of eligible candidates for the state judiciary’s senior-most tier and open new avenues of advancement for subordinate judges. The ruling also emphasises a broader constitutional principle that the judiciary must remain a merit-driven and inclusive institution, where opportunities are defined by ability and experience -- not by rigid labels of “Bar” or “Bench.
Delivering the leading opinion on behalf of himself and three other judges, CJI Gavai held: “We see no reason to deny an opportunity to such young talented judicial officers to compete with the advocates and pleaders having seven years’ practice in the matter of direct recruitment to the post of district judge.”
Rejecting the long-standing interpretation that Article 233(2) reserved the 25% “Bar quota” exclusively for practising advocates, the court held that the Constitution draws no such rigid line. “A combined reading of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 233… reveals that clause (2) does not provide for qualification for an in-service candidate while it provides qualification for a candidate who is an advocate,” the bench said.
The court expressly rejected the respondents’ argument that judicial officers could only become district judges through promotion. “If meritorious young blood should be introduced in the mixed cadre, there is no reason why merited serving judges should be excluded,” the judgment quoted from the Shetty Commission report (1999), whose recommendations were endorsed by the bench.
Agreeing with the Commission’s view that such inclusion would “promote efficiency and improve discipline in judicial service,” the court said the system would benefit when high courts can “assess the merit of serving judges as against the merits of competent advocates.”
Crucially, the Bench clarified that an advocate who joins judicial service “only suspends his right to practise” and continues to remain on the roll of the State Bar Council.
“The experience the judicial officers gain while working as judges is much greater than that gained while working as advocates,” held the court, noting that judicial officers also undergo rigorous training before assuming their roles.
CJI Gavai drew a telling comparison: “When government pleaders and assistant public prosecutors who still practice in courts are held competent to apply for direct recruitment to the post of district judge, can the judicial officers before whom they practice be considered inferior?” Calling this “an anomaly,” the bench said it found “no reason to deny an opportunity” to judicial officers to compete alongside advocates for direct recruitment
However, the bench declined to accept the plea that even candidates with breaks in legal practice could aggregate their total years of experience to reach seven years. “If a person has practised for five years, taken a break of ten years, and then practises again for two years, there will be a disconnect with the legal profession,” the Court reasoned, holding that only those with continuous experience, whether as an advocate, a judicial officer, or a combination thereof, would qualify.
In another important clarification, the court ruled that there is no 25% “quota” constitutionally reserved only for practising advocates. “If the contention in this respect is accepted, it will amount to providing a ‘quota’ for advocates having seven years’ practice,” the bench held.
It further ruled that eligibility must be assessed at the time of submitting the application, not at the time of appointment. This, the bench explained, prevents unfair disqualification of candidates whose selection processes may take longer or who may have joined judicial service in the meantime.
To ensure uniformity across states, the top court introduced a minimum age requirement of 35 years for such appointments and directed all states, in consultation with their respective high courts, to frame suitable rules within three months.
The judgment also expanded the meaning of “experience” under Article 233(2), holding that combined experience as an advocate and judicial officer can satisfy the seven-year requirement, and that those who have served as judicial officers for seven years are equally eligible.
The ruling marks a departure from the restrictive interpretation in the Dheeraj Mor Vs Delhi High Court case (2020), which serving judges from applying under the Bar quota. The new ruling is likely to broaden career mobility, enhance competition and improve the talent pool in the district judiciary.
The case stemmed from a dispute in Kerala, where Rejanish KV, a lawyer with seven years’ experience, was selected as a district judge after he was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate. Another candidate challenged his selection, arguing that he was no longer a practising advocate and hence ineligible.
A three-judge bench led by CJI Gavai referred the issue to a larger bench on August 12, and the constitution bench reserved its judgment on September 25 after a three-day hearing. Senior advocates Jayant Bhushan, Arvind Datar, PS Patwalia, V Giri, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Vibha Makhija, Jaideep Gupta, Manish Singhvi and Maneka Guruswamy argued for the petitioners, while Rajiv Shakdher, CU Singh, Nidhesh Gupta and Vijay Hansaria appeared for the respondents.
