SC reserves order on eligibility of judicial officers as district judges

AFive-judge physical composition bench of the sublime margaret court on th reserved its judgement on whether serving judicial officers can apply for district judge positions reserved exclusively for lawyers, after hearing three days of arguments on a contentious constitutional interpretation.The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and comprising justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran, delved into the scope of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which governs direct recruitment of district judges from the Bar.The constitutional provision 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 a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.”The dispute arose from Kerala, where lawyer Rejanish, after seven years of practice, applied for appointment as district judge. However, before his selection materialised, he was appointed as Munsiff magistrate. In August 2019, he was relieved from this post and subsequently joined as District Judge.His appointment was challenged by another candidate, K Deepa, who argued that the seven-year eligibility requirement as a lawyer should be continuous, thereby disqualifying Rejanish since he had joined judicial service. This raised the fundamental question of whether judicial service interrupts the continuity of legal practice required under the constitutional provision.The Kerala High Court’s single judge allowed Deepa’s petition, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi, which held that continuous practice as a lawyer was essential for eligibility under Article 233(2). However, a division bench of the HC later referred the matter to the Supreme Court, noting that Kerala government rules contradicted the Dheeraj Mor judgment.The Constitution bench examined four key issues, with the moot question being whether a judicial officer who has completed seven years at the Bar would be entitled for appointment as additional district judge against bar vacancy—an issue that squarely arose in Rejanish’s case.The other questions included whether eligibility is assessed at the time of appointment, application, or both; what eligibility exists for those already in judicial service under Article 233(2); and whether combined experience as both advocate and civil judge for a total of seven or more years qualifies for appointment.High courts and bar councils, supported by lawyers, maintained that Article 233(2) restricts appointments exclusively to Bar members. They argued that judicial officers have alternative routes through promotion or Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).Judicial officers countered that the constitutional provision merely sets eligibility conditions without prohibiting in-service officers from applying. They sought reconsideration of the Dheeraj Mor judgment, which they argued wrongly barred judicial officers from competing for these positions.The bench emphasised the need for merit-based appointments, observing: “We have to move away from the mindset of either being judge-centric or lawyer-centric. It should be litigant-centric. The constitutional mandate requires that the best of the talent is attracted with the idea being to empower the institution. For this you have to ensure the quality at the bottom is of the same quality in a multi-hierarchical structure like ours.”Arguments favouring judicial officers were led by senior advocates Jayant Bhushan, Arvind Datar, PS Patwalia, V Giri, Jaideep Gupta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Vibha Makhija. The opposing view, supporting lawyers’ exclusive rights, was presented by senior advocates CU Singh, Nidhesh Gupta, Vijay Hansaria, Ravindra Srivastava, and Rajiv Shakder.The judgment, when delivered, will significantly impact judicial recruitment across India and determine whether the constitutional framework allows for greater flexibility in appointing district judges or maintains strict compartmentalisation between direct recruitment and promotion channels.