SC opens Bar quota to serving judges, calls exclusion discriminatory

It further ruled that eligibility must be assessed at the time of submitting the application, not at the time of appointment

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, in a judgment that could reshape district judiciary recruitment across the country.

To ensure uniformity across states, the top court introduced a minimum age requirement of 35 years for such appointments. (ANI file photo)

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, ruled that interpreting Article 233(2) of the Constitution to exclude such officers would be discriminatory and contrary to the objective of maintaining quality in judicial service.

The judgment, delivered through separate but concurring opinions by CJI Gavai and Justice Sundresh, will operate prospectively from the date of pronouncement.

The bench clarified that judicial officers who have already completed seven years of practice as advocates before joining the subordinate judiciary will remain eligible to apply for appointment as district or additional district judges under the Bar quota. Such candidates, the court held, cannot be denied the opportunity merely because they entered judicial service after fulfilling the requisite experience.

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 had barred 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 while he had also been 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 had 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.