Recruitment of Judicial Officers as District Judges | Arguments Matrix

On 25 September, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai reserved judgement in the case concerning the recruitment of judicial officers as District Judges under the Bar quota. 

The case concerns the appointment of Rejanish K.V. under the Bar quota, which was set aside by the Kerala High Court on the ground that he had entered judicial service before his appointment was confirmed. The Single Judge Bench had relied on Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi (2020) and held that only practising advocates are eligible for such appointments under Article 233(2). The provision states that a person who “has been for not less than seven years an advocate” is eligible for direct recruitment. 

The case dealt with two central questions: whether judicial officers with prior bar experience can be considered under the Bar quota, and how the seven years’ practice requirement in Article 233(2) should be interpreted.

Petitioners argued that judicial officers with prior bar practice should be eligible. Respondents maintained that Article 233(2) is limited to practising advocates and excludes those already in service.

In this matrix, we have summarised the key arguments. Our detailed hearing reports set out these arguments in greater detail.