Can judicial officers claim Bar quota in district judge appointments? Supreme Court reserves verdict

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in a case that will decide whether judicial officers with seven years's experience at the bar before joining the judiciary, can apply for the post of district judge under the quota meant for advocates [Rejanish KV v. K Deepa & Ors].

A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran heard the matter over three days before reserving judgment.

The case centres on the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which sets out eligibility criterion for appointment of district judges.

The ruling is expected to settle an issue that has lingered since the Court’s 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor, where a three-judge bench had barred judicial officers applying under Bar quota.

Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta began the day’s arguments by insisting that Article 233(2) is confined to direct recruitment of lawyers from the Bar and cannot include those already in judicial service even if they might practiced law before becoming judicial officers. He referred to Constituent Assembly Debates, the Shetty Commission and earlier rulings of the top court.

He said the risk of misinterpretation was that a candidate could serve only a few years as a lawyer, join as a civil judge, and then immediately claim eligibility for the Bar quota for appointment as district judge.

“The result would be that we are reading something into Article 233(2) which is not there. It does not say in-service,” Gupta argued.

Justice Sundresh noted that promotions of judicial officers as district judges form a separate route and that direct recruitment of lawyers must be read distinctly.

CJI Gavai added that appointments under both clauses of Article 233 must be read together.

Gupta stressed that several precedents had treated the Bar quota as distinct.

“In one sentence, your lordships are being asked under Article 233(2), which speaks of those not in service, to read those in service. Then to prescribe qualifications for them which is not stated and also, if required, add an explanation. We are not in parliament. We are interpreting the Constitution,” he said.

When Gupta concluded, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria supported exclusion of in-service candidates from the Bar quota, pointing to history and past rulings. He said that unlike Article 217 on High Court appointments, Article 233 does not prescribe qualifications, leaving it to the wisdom of High Courts. Justice Sundresh responded that two clear streams exist - promotion of in-service judges and direct recruitment of lawyers.

“There are two modes. Lawyers will not be considered for promotion. That will only be for in-service candidates. But for direct recruitment we are considering,” Justice Sundresh said.

Chief Justice Gavai raised concerns about High Courts’ discretion under rules framed by States while Justice Sundresh remarked that the Court must look at entitlement against the constitutional mandate.

He observed that judicial service cannot be viewed only from the perspective of judges or lawyers.

“We have to move away from our mindset of being either judge-centric or lawyer-centric. We have to be litigant-centric,” Justice Sundresh said.

After lunch, arguments continued on how earlier rulings like Chandra Mohan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors should be read.

The counsel for one side argued that if Tehsildars can move into the IAS, judicial officers too should not be barred from competing.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher countered that allowing judicial officers with little or no experience as lawyer to use the Bar quota would open a third and disruptive avenue.

“They want to open a third avenue, which is disruptive. The Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is already increased under the All India Judges case,” Shakdher said.

The Delhi High Court’s counsel added a practical concern, pointing out that judicial officers failing in such exams could face reputational harm, yet still rise by promotion.

The counsel for other High Courts and Bar Councils argued that Article 233’s silence was deliberate and should not be filled by judicial interpretation. Advocate Siddharth R Gupta for Madhya Pradesh Bar Council submitted that once an advocate becomes a judge, their Bar licence is suspended and only resumes on retirement.

Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan said that long-standing precedents like Rameshwar Dayal vs The State Of Punjab & Ors and Chandra Mohan had been misunderstood. He urged the Court not to endorse an incorrect interpretation.

CJI Gavai, meanwhile, asked whether legislatures could create reservations in district judge posts and flagged the importance of assessing eligibility at the right stage - either at application stage or the stage of appointment.

The Bench then proceeded to reserve its judgment.

[Read Order]

[Read Live Coverage]