Supreme Court clears path for judicial officers with seven years’ bar experience to be appointed as District Judges

State governments to draft new rules to accommodate judicial officers

The CJI began by noting that no word or statute can be read in isolation and a textual interpretation of Article 233 must match contextual interpretation. Therefore, the Court noted that the provision, which regulates appointments to the District Courts, has to be read as a whole.

The Court held that Article 233(2) provides for qualification for advocates but does not specify any separate qualification for in-service candidates. CJI Gavai noted that the interpretation cannot be “pedantic” and must be organic; any interpretation that restricts competition will not be accepted.

The Bench noted that earlier rulings in Rameshwar Dayal v State of Punjab (1960) and Chandra Mohan v State of Uttar Pradesh (1966) had not been properly considered. It held that accepting the interpretation in these decisions would render the first part of Article 233 infructuous. The Chief added that an injustice had been meted out to judicial officers by depriving them of the opportunity for recruitment as District Judges.

CJI Gavai clarified that the judgement will operate prospectively and will not affect any applications or selections that took place prior to this decision, except where interim orders have been passed by High Courts. The Court directed that any recruitment rules that conflict with the judgement are set aside. The state governments, in consultation with the High Courts, will frame new rules and amend any existing rules within three months.

The Court rejected the contention that Article 233(2) provides a 25 percent quota for direct recruits. This was related to arguments by Senior Advocate C.U. Singh. The Court then held that the doctrine of stare decisis cannot be used to perpetuate an incorrect interpretation of law. Judicial officers who have completed seven years at the Bar before joining service will now be entitled to appointment as District Judges, and eligibility will be assessed at the time of selection.

The Court clarified that on appointment as a judge, only an advocate’s right to practice is suspended and his name remains on the roll. The Bench further held that candidates must have a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and judicial officer, and must be at least 35 years old on the date of application.

Justice Sundresh’s concurring opinion

Justice Sundresh held that both qualifications under Article 233 are gateways to the judicial service and that the basic structure of the Constitution must be kept in mind while interpreting it. Justice Sundresh stated that ensuring a judiciary of pristine quality requires drawing the best talent into service. He noted that failing to identify and nurture emerging talent at the earliest stages would lead to mediocrity instead of excellence, weakening the foundation of the judicial system. He added that greater competition would enhance quality, and excluding a group of persons from a public post would be unconstitutional and violate Article 14.