SC commences hearing on eligibility of judicial officers for District Judge posts under Bar quota

New Delhi, Sep 23 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced hearing on a significant legal question on whether judicial officers, who had completed seven years of practice as advocates prior to joining the bench, can be appointed as district judges under vacancies earmarked for the Bar.

A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran started hearing 30 petitions, having wide ramifications for judicial recruitment across the country.

The bench is examining questions pertaining to interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution that governs appointment of district judges.

“Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State,” Article 233 says.

It also says: “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.” Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for a group of civil judges who were denied participation in direct recruitment examinations for district judge posts, opened the arguments.

He submitted that several judicial officers, despite completing seven years of practice as advocates before joining the subordinate judiciary, were barred from applying under the Bar quota.

Their petitions before various high courts were dismissed, relying on earlier judgments.

“The issue has now culminated into a constitutional interpretation question of great importance,” Bhushan argued.

Referring to four key questions for consideration, Bhushan said the first issue is “whether a judicial officer, who has already completed seven years at the Bar before joining judicial service, is entitled to appointment as an Additional District Judge against Bar quota vacancies”.

“Whether eligibility for district judge appointments must be assessed at the stage of application, appointment, or both,” he said, referring to the second issue.

The third issue, he said, is whether Article 233(2) prescribes separate eligibility for persons already serving in the judicial services of the Union or State. “Whether a combined period of seven years as an advocate and judicial officer would qualify a candidate for district judge appointment,” he said about the fourth issue.

Bhushan referred to the Indian Civil Services Act, 1861, and constituent assembly debates to trace the historical basis of district judge appointments. The hearing is underway.

Earlier on September 12, the CJI-ed bench said it will commence hearing from September 23 on the issues and hear arguments over three days till September 25.

The bench said it will have to examine whether the combined experience of practice at the Bar and subsequent judicial service can be counted toward eligibility.

The CJI, however, cautioned against an interpretation that could lead to “a situation where a person with just two years’ practice becomes eligible.” The posts of ADJs, who are part of higher judicial service, are filled up through promotions of lower judicial officers. They are also filled up through direct recruitment of lawyers who have at least seven years of experience at the Bar.

Now the issue is whether a lower judicial officer can also apply for the posts of ADJs under direct recruitment quota meant for lawyers and his experience of seven years as a judicial officer or a lawyer or both can be counted or not.

On August 12, a three-judge bench headed by the CJI had referred to a five-judge Constitution bench the questions.

"We refer the ...issues for consideration of a constitution bench of five Judges of this court. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for obtaining appropriate orders," the bench said.

The top court had passed the order while hearing an appeal filed against a Kerala High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of a district judge on the grounds that he was not a practising advocate at the time of appointment and was in judicial service.

The petitioner was a practising lawyer with seven years of experience in the bar when he submitted his application for the post of the district judge. PTI SJK SJK DV DV