The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it will begin hearing a significant case from September 23, which concerns whether a judicial officer, who had practised for 7 years at the Bar before joining the lower judiciary, is eligible for appointment as an Additional District Judge under the Bar quota.
A Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma, and K Vinod Chandran will hear the matter over 3 days, from September 23-September 25.
Core Issue For Determination
The central question revolves around Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of district judges. The provision states that a person not already in the service of the Union or State must have at least 7 years of experience as an advocate or pleader and must be recommended by the High Court to be eligible for appointment.
The court is now examining whether the combined experience of practising law and subsequent service as a judicial officer can be counted toward fulfilling the eligibility criteria under the Bar quota. Specifically, the issue is whether such judicial officers can be considered for appointment against vacancies earmarked exclusively for practising advocates.
The Chief Justice clarified that while experience should be considered, the interpretation should not open the door to appointments based on just a few years of practice. “We have to ensure that it does not lead to a situation where a person with just 2 years’ practice becomes eligible,” the CJI remarked.
Nodal Counsels Appointed
To streamline proceedings, the bench appointed Advocate Ajay Kumar Singh as nodal counsel for those supporting the proposition and John Mathew for the opposing side. The counsels have been instructed to prepare a common “convenience compilation” to facilitate smooth hearings.
Background
The posts of ADJs are filled through 2 routes:
- Promotion from lower judicial officers, and
- Direct recruitment from the Bar, where candidates must have at least 7 years of practice as a lawyer.
- The question before the court is whether a judicial officer’s experience—combined or considered separately—can meet the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment under the Bar quota.
Reference To A Larger Bench
On August 12, a 3-judge bench led by the CJI referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution bench, seeking clarity on whether eligibility must be assessed at the time of appointment, at the time of application, or both. The issue arose from an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgment that invalidated a district judge’s appointment because he was serving as a judicial officer, not practising as an advocate, at the time of appointment.
The petitioner, however, had completed 7 years as a practising advocate before joining the bench and submitted his application based on that experience.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
