Direct Recruitment of Judicial Officers as District Judges
Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will decide if judicial officers who have previously practised as advocates for at least seven years are eligible for direct recruitment as district judges under the bar quota
Pending
Parties
Appellant: Rejanish K.V.
Lawyers: Senior Advocates Jayant Bhushan, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Menaka Guruswamy, V. Giri, Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Shoeb Alam, Rajiveev Bhalla
Respondent: K. Deepa
Lawyers: Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, C.U. Singh, Jaideep Gupta, A. Hariprasad, Shekhar G Devasa, A. M. Bujor Barua, R. Basant
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020
Next Hearing:
Last Updated: September 12, 2025
Key Issues
Can Judicial officers, with an experience of seven years or more at the Bar, be directly recruited as judges of the District Court in the Bar quota?
Does the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge apply at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both?
Case Description
Rejanish KV was a practising advocate with more than seven years of experience at the bar when he applied for appointment as a district judge through the direct recruitment route reserved for advocates. However, before his appointment was finalised, he was appointed as a munsiff, a judicial officer in the subordinate judiciary. This sequence of events raised a question about whether a judicial officer who had previously practised law could still qualify for appointment as a district judge under the bar quota.
High Court’s decisions
In a Single-Judge of the Kerala High Court, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi (2020), held that only practising advocates at the time of appointment were eligible for district judge posts under the bar quota. Since Rejanish was serving as a judicial officer rather than a practising advocate at the time of appointment, the High Court set aside his appointment.
Rejanish challenged this decision before a larger Bench. He argued that since he had fulfilled the required seven years of practice at the bar before becoming a judicial officer, he should be eligible for the District Judge post reserved for advocates.
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision but also acknowledged that the case raised a substantial constitutional question about the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution and the relevant state rules on eligibility.
The provision states that a person who is not already working for the Union government or a State government can only become a district judge if they have worked as a lawyer for at least seven years and if the High Court recommends them for the position.
At the Supreme Court
On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the issues involved complex questions regarding the eligibility criteria for district judge appointments through the bar quota. On 12 August, a Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai with Justices K.V. Chandran and J. N.V. Anjaria referred the case to a larger Bench. Specifically, the larger Bench will decide whether:
- Judicial officers who have qualified as advocates for seven years before joining the judiciary may be considered eligible for direct recruitment as district judges reserved for practising advocates.
- The eligibility must be determined at the time of application or at the time of appointment.