Is Judicial Officer Eligible For District Judge Post In Bar Quota? | Supreme Court Flags Article 233(2) Issue And Refers Matter To Constitution Bench
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, in a decision delivered by a Bench led by the Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria, directed that specific issues concerning the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution be referred to a Constitution Bench comprising not less than five Judges. The Court determined that the matters in question involved substantial questions of law requiring authoritative interpretation by a larger Bench. The directive also ordered that the Registry place the matter before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for appropriate orders and stipulated that the present batch of petitions would be heard after the Constitution Bench renders its opinion.
The present proceedings arose from multiple petitions, including review petitions, writ petitions, and civil appeals, all seeking reconsideration of the judgment delivered on 19 February 2020 in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In that judgment, a three-Judge Bench had held that members of the judicial service of a State could be appointed as District Judges either by promotion or through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). It was further held that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, an advocate or pleader with seven years of practice could be appointed as a District Judge by way of direct recruitment, provided such individual was not already in the judicial service of the Union or a State. Consequently, rules framed by High Courts debarring judicial officers from contesting posts reserved for direct recruitment from the Bar were not ultra vires.
The petitions before the Court sought a declaration that judicial officers who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the judicial service should be eligible for appointment as District Judges through direct recruitment under Article 233(2). Senior counsel representing these petitioners argued that the question warranted reconsideration by a Constitution Bench, given that the matter involved substantial constitutional interpretation. The Court's attention was drawn to earlier proceedings, including G. Sabitha v. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, where a similar question had been recorded as pending before a Constitution Bench in SLP(C) No. 14156 of 2015.
It was submitted that although the said matter had been referred to a Constitution Bench, the decision in Dheeraj Mor was ultimately delivered by a three-Judge Bench. Counsel in support of the reference contended that this was contrary to the mandate of Article 145(3) of the Constitution, which prescribes a minimum of five Judges for deciding cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation.
Opposing counsel maintained that the judgment in Dheeraj Mor merely reaffirmed principles already established in earlier Constitution Bench decisions, including Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab and Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh. They argued that a fresh reference was unnecessary. The Court noted that the issues considered in those precedents—pertaining to the counting of pre-partition Bar practice and the eligibility of non-judicial service officers for appointment as District Judges—were distinct from the present questions.
The Court reviewed Article 145(3), which stipulates that the minimum number of Judges required for deciding a case involving a substantial question of constitutional interpretation shall be five. Reference was also made to observations in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, where it was stated that such matters must be heard by a five-Judge Bench. The Bench concluded that the present issues ought to have been placed before a Constitution Bench and identified two specific questions for reference: (i) whether a judicial officer who has completed seven years at the Bar before joining judicial service is entitled to appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar quota; and (ii) whether eligibility is to be assessed at the time of application, at the time of appointment, or both.
The Court recorded: "Ordinarily, in view of the question involving interpretation of Article 233(2), the matter ought to have been placed before a Bench of five learned Judges." It noted that, despite this, the Dheeraj Mor case was decided by a three-Judge Bench.
The Bench referred to Article 145(3), stating: "It can thus be seen that Article 145(3) of the Constitution provides that the minimum number of Judges, for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any Reference under Article 143 shall be five."
The Court cited Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India: "It is clear from the language of Article 145(3) of the Constitution and Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the matters which involve substantial questions of law as to interpretation of constitutional provisions they are required to be heard by a Bench of five Judges."
In considering past precedents, the Court explained that in Rameshwar Dayal, the question concerned counting pre-partition Bar practice towards the seven-year requirement, while Chandra Mohan dealt with whether persons from non-judicial State services could be appointed as District Judges. These were distinct from the questions currently before the Court.
The Court identified the two substantial questions of law for determination: "(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?"
The Court issued the following directives: "We refer the aforesaid issues for consideration of a Constitution Bench of five Judges of this Court." It further ordered: "The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for obtaining appropriate orders; and this batch of petitions would be heard after the Reference is decided by the Constitution Bench."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Shri Jayant Bhushan, Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Shri V. Giri, Shri Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Shri Shoeb Alam, Shri Rajive Bhalla, Senior Advocates, and others.
For the Respondents: Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Shri C.U. Singh, Shri Jaideep Gupta, Shri A. Hariprasad, Shri Shekhar G. Devasa, Shri A.M. Bujor Barua, Shri R. Basant, Senior Advocates, and others.
Case Title: Rejanesh K.V v. K. Deepa and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 965
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020 etc.
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria
