Supreme Court To Commence Hearing On Judicial Officers' Eligibility For District Judge Appointment In Bar Quota From September 23

The 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran today set down the hearing schedule. The bench proposed to complete the hearing on September 25, giving each sides 1.5 days to present their versions.

The bench has been constituted after the 3-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed an order on August 12, referring the matter to a larger bench

The following two issues were referred, after noting that the issue pertained to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution :

(i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy?

(ii) Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both?

Today, CJI Gavai said that Justice Sundresh has suggested an additional issue- whether the combined experience at the bar and in judicial service can be cumulatively considered for a District Judge through direct recruitment.

The bench today stated that the persons supporting the proposition (i.e those arguing that a judicial officer who had 7 years experience in the bar can seek direct recruitment to DJ posts) will argue on September 23 and the first half of September 24. The side opposing the proposition will argue on the second half of September 24 and on September 25. Ajay Kumar Singh has been appointed as the nodal counsel for the side supporting the proposition and John Mathew is the nodal counsel for the side opposing.

Why Was The Reference Made? 

The Court passed the reference order in an appeal filed against a Kerala High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of a District Judge on the ground that, at the time of issuing the order of appointment, he was not a practising Advocate and was in judicial service, functioning as a Munsiff.

In 2021, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's judgment.

The appellant Rejanish KV was a practising lawyer having 7 years' experience in the Bar when he submitted his application for the post of District Judge. He was also an applicant for selection to the post of Munsiff/Magistrate and while the selection process of District Judge was underway, he was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate on 28/12/2017. After he got appointment order to the post of District Judge, he was relieved from the Subordinate Judiciary on 21/8/2019 and he took charge as District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on 24/8/2019. Another candidate [K. Deepa] filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging his appointment contending that he was not eligible to be appointed as District Judge since at the relevant time when he was appointed as a District Judge, he was not a practising Advocate and was in judicial service, functioning as a Munsiff.

This writ petition was allowed by the Single Bench relying on a Supreme Court judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi in which it was held that an advocate who applies for the post of District Judge by way of direct recruitment should continue to be a practising Advocate until the date of appointment.

Though it upheld the Single Bench judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that several appointments of District Judges may have been made across the country based on the Rules applicable in the respective States which may, as in the case of the Kerala Rules be contrary to the declaration of law in Dheeraj Mor. It, therefore, granted certificate to file appeal before the Supreme Court observing that matter involves substantial question of law of general importance.

Case: REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020] and other connected matters