Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear Tomorrow Reference On Judicial Officer's Eligibility For District Judge Appointment In Bar Vacancy

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench will tomorrow hear the issue of whether a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar vacancy.The 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran will consider the matter. The bench has been constituted after the 3-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed an order on August 12, referring the matter to a larger bench The Court also referred the issue whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge has to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both.The bench passed the reference order, noting that the issue related to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution which prescribes that a person, who is not already in the service of Union or the State, can be appointed as a District Judge only if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader.Background The Court passed the reference order in an appeal filed against a Kerala High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of a District Judge on the ground that, at the time of issuing the order of appointment, he was not a practising Advocate and was in judicial service, functioning as a Munsiff.In 2021, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's judgment.The appellant Rejanish KV was a practising lawyer having 7 years' experience in the Bar when he submitted his application for the post of District Judge. He was also an applicant for selection to the post of Munsiff/Magistrate and while the selection process of District Judge was underway, he was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate on 28/12/2017. After he got appointment order to the post of District Judge, he was relieved from the Subordinate Judiciary on 21/8/2019 and he took charge as District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on 24/8/2019. Another candidate [K. Deepa] filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging his appointment contending that he was not eligible to be appointed as District Judge since at the relevant time when he was appointed as a District Judge, he was not a practising Advocate and was in judicial service, functioning as a Munsiff. This writ petition was allowed by the Single Bench relying on a Supreme Court judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi in which it was held that an advocate who applies for the post of District Judge by way of direct recruitment should continue to be a practising Advocate until the date of appointment.Though it upheld the Single Bench judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that several appointments of District Judges may have been made across the country based on the Rules applicable in the respective States which may, as in the case of the Kerala Rules be contrary to the declaration of law in Dheeraj Mor. It, therefore, granted certificate to file appeal before the Supreme Court observing that matter involves substantial question of law of general importance.Case: REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020]

Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear Tomorrow Reference On Judicial Officer's Eligibility For District Judge Appointment In Bar Vacancy

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags