© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In a landmark decision that redraws the career path for judicial officers, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday (October 9) ruled that sitting judges in the subordinate judiciary can compete for the post of district judge through direct recruitment.
The verdict in Rejanish KV vs K Deepa, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, overturns a series of previous Supreme Court judgements that had reserved this direct recruitment quota exclusively for lawyers with at least seven years of practice at the bar.
The judgment consists of a majority opinion authored by CJI Gavai on behalf of himself and Justices Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran, and a separate, concurring opinion by Justice MM Sundresh, which reinforces the conclusion through a different line of reasoning.
Background
The path to becoming a district judge has, until now, been distinct for advocates and lower court judges. Lawyers could be directly recruited, while lower court judges, such as civil judges and judicial magistrates, had to wait for promotion through seniority or a limited competitive exam.
The case reached the Supreme Court after Rejanish KV, a lawyer with over seven years of practice, was appointed as a junior judge in Kerala after applying for the post of district judge through direct recruitment. His subsequent appointment as district judge created a legal dilemma: was he still eligible for a post reserved for lawyers, given that he was now a serving judicial officer?
The Kerala High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgement in Dheeraj Mor vs High Court of Delhi that barred judicial officers from this route, cancelled his appointment. When Rejanish appealed before the Supreme Court, a three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger Constitution Bench to definitively rule on whether judicial officers could compete for posts under the bar quota and at what stage their eligibility should be determined.
What the Supreme Court held
The Constitution Bench held that the previous interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution – the provision governing the appointment of district judges – was flawed and created an artificial barrier that was not intended by the Constitution’s framers. The court reasoned that barring judicial officers from the direct recruitment process was not only discriminatory, but also counterproductive to the goal of attracting the best talent to the higher district judiciary.
The core of the majority opinion’s reasoning rested on a fresh reading of Article 233(2). This clause states that “a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State” shall be eligible for appointment as a district judge only if they have been an advocate for at least seven years. It found that earlier judgements had interpreted this to mean that only practising advocates could be directly recruited.
The majority opinion, however, ruled that this interpretation was incorrect. It explained that the clause merely sets a minimum qualification for candidates coming from the bar; it does not create an absolute prohibition on those already in judicial service. It noted that a narrow interpretation rendered the words “a person not already in the service” redundant and failed to give meaning to the entire constitutional text.
Gavai’s judgement emphasised that the objective of any selection process is to secure the “best and the most suitable person for the job”. It observed that the experience gained by a judicial officer is invaluable and should not be a disqualification. Allowing them to compete with lawyers, it reasoned, would create a wider talent pool, foster healthy competition and ultimately enhance the quality and efficiency of the judiciary.
Justice Sundresh’s concurring view
While agreeing with the final conclusion of the majority opinion, Justice Sundresh provided additional reasoning in his concurring opinion. He framed the issue through the lens of judicial independence and the doctrine of “constitutional silence” to argue that the framers deliberately fixed the eligibility criteria of seven years’ experience only for advocates, leaving the criteria open-ended for in-service candidates – thereby placing no fetters on their eligibility to compete for direct recruitment vacancies.
Justice Sundresh argued that treating a judge as a mere “employee” of the state, and therefore debarred from competing for a higher post, undermines the principle of an independent judiciary. He also pointed out that the Constitution is “silent” on the eligibility criteria for judicial officers for direct recruitment – which he interpreted as a deliberate choice by its framers to leave this matter to the wisdom of the High Courts, rather than creating a constitutional bar. An absolute bar, he concluded, would amount to an unconstitutional “quota” for advocates and violate the principle of equality under Article 14.
Overturning precedent
In reaching its decision, the Constitution bench overturned a long line of precedent. In the judicial system, the doctrine of stare decisis – literally “to stand by things decided” – ensures consistency, meaning courts are generally bound by the rulings of previous benches of equal or greater strength. However, this is not an inflexible rule. A larger bench of the Supreme Court can overrule the decision of a smaller bench if it finds a manifest error in law.
In this case, the five-judge Constitution Bench explicitly overruled the law laid down by a two-judge bench of the apex court in Satya Narain Singh vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in 1984 and by a three-judge bench in Dheeraj Mor vs High Court of Delhi in 2020. These judgements had cemented the position that the direct recruitment channel was exclusively for practising advocates.
The majority opinion of the bench reasoned that it was compelled to depart from this precedent because the earlier rulings had caused “injustice” to members of the judicial service for decades. It held that when an interpretation of the Constitution is found to be inconsistent with its text and harmful to the public interest, it is the court’s duty to correct it.
What changes now
The Supreme Court’s verdict not only reinterprets the law but also comes with a set of directions that will change how district judges are recruited across India.
*Serving judicial officers are now eligible to apply for the post of District Judge under the direct recruitment quota.
*To create a “level playing field,” the court mandated a new eligibility rule: a candidate, whether a lawyer or a judicial officer, must have a minimum of seven years of continuous experience. For a serving judge, this can be a combination of their years as a practising lawyer before joining the service and their years as a judge. However, only those persons who have a continuous experience, whether as an advocate, a judicial officer or a combination thereof, on the date of application shall be eligible. This means that a significant, unconnected break in professional association will make one ineligible.
*A uniform minimum age of 35 years has been set for all candidates – both from the bar and from the judicial service – to apply for recruitment as a district judge.
*Eligibility for appointment as a district judge must be assessed at the time of application, not at the time of appointment.
*All state governments and high courts have been directed to amend their judicial service rules to incorporate these changes within three months.
The court clarified that its ruling will apply prospectively, meaning it will not affect appointments or selection processes that were completed before this judgement was delivered.
