The Supreme Court referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench the pivotal question of whether a judicial officer, who has previously completed seven years of practice as an advocate, can be appointed as a District Judge under the quota reserved for members of the Bar. The Court also decided to examine whether eligibility should be assessed at the time of filing the application, at the time of appointment, or at both stages.
The matter arises from an appeal challenging a Kerala High Court ruling that invalidated the appointment of a District Judge. The High Court had held that, on the date the appointment order was issued, the candidate was serving as a Munsiff and was not a practising advocate, thus failing to meet the requirement under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
The appellant, Rejanish K.V., had been a practising lawyer for over seven years when he applied for the District Judge post. During the recruitment process, he was also selected for appointment as Munsiff-Magistrate and joined the subordinate judiciary in December 2017. When his appointment as District Judge was later confirmed in August 2019, he resigned from the Munsiff position and assumed charge as District Judge in Thiruvananthapuram. Another candidate challenged this appointment, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, which mandates that an advocate applying through the Bar quota must remain in active practice until the date of appointment.
The petitioner argued before the High Court that the appointment contravened Article 233(2) of the Constitution and binding precedent, as the appellant was not in active legal practice when the appointment order was issued. In response, the respondent contended that the appellant had fulfilled the seven-year practice requirement at the time of application, had resigned from judicial service before assuming charge as District Judge, and that the appointment complied with the relevant State rules, noting that several similar appointments had been made across the country.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria noted that the matter involves an important constitutional question regarding the interpretation of Article 233(2). This provision stipulates that a person not in the service of the Union or State may be appointed as District Judge only if they have been an advocate or pleader for at least seven years.
The Court observed that different States have varying recruitment rules and that the Kerala High Court had itself acknowledged that multiple appointments across the country could be affected by the ruling in Dheeraj Mor. The issue, therefore, carried implications of national significance.
The Supreme Court formally referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench for authoritative determination. The Bench will decide:
-
Whether a judicial officer who has previously completed seven years at the Bar is eligible for appointment against the Bar quota.
-
Whether eligibility is to be tested at the application stage, the appointment stage, or both.
The case is expected to be listed for hearing before the Constitution Bench shortly.
Picture Source :
