The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the relevance of scrutinising an advocate's income while considering his appointment to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as a Civil Judge, observing that a candidate's earnings as a practising lawyer cannot ordinarily become a ground to reassess his suitability after he has already been selected.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a plea filed by an advocate challenging the denial of his appointment despite his inclusion in the selection list.

Questioning the High Court's decision to undertake a fresh scrutiny after the selection process, Justice Nagarathna remarked, "After putting him on the selection list, how can there be a second scrutiny? If criminal antecedents are not disclosed, if there is suppression, you can. But his earnings as an advocate, how is it relevant?"

The Court also expressed concern over the State's attempt to examine the petitioner's financial affairs while he was in private practice.

"As an advocate when he was practising, how is the income relevant? After joining, even to buy a two-wheeler you have to take the permission of the High Court. But as an advocate, where is the question of you sitting in judgment over his income?" Justice Nagarathna observed.

During the hearing, the judge made a candid remark that drew attention in the courtroom: "In fact, which advocate discloses his true income in his income tax returns? I am asking frankly."

Responding to the Bench's concerns, Senior Advocate S. Gurukrishnakumar, appearing in the matter, clarified that the issue was not the petitioner's income per se. He submitted that doubts had arisen during an inquiry into the candidate's criminal antecedents, during which certain sale transactions came to light.

"The material came about regarding his sources of income and there was doubt created about his income and some sale transactions. He was called to give some details and his answers were not satisfactory," Gurukrishnakumar submitted.

He later added that "it was really not about income but about some particular sale transactions that there was a doubt about integrity."

Justice Nagarathna, however, questioned whether such an exercise effectively amounted to reassessing the earlier decision of the selection committee.

"Where is the question of a second scrutiny once the committee headed by the senior judge and other judges have found him suitable? That means you are sitting in judgment over the earlier suitability," she observed.

Counsel appearing for the High Court submitted that the petitioner had himself admitted in a communication to the High Court that he had made "several separations" regarding his income. Gurukrishnakumar further argued that the appointment offered to the petitioner was only provisional and not a regular appointment.

The Bench also questioned the broader implications of such financial scrutiny. "Are you going to question every judicial officer about transactions? After they are appointed they get all the fees," Justice Nagarathna remarked.

Senior Advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that his client continued to be interested in joining the judicial service. Referring to lawyers transitioning to the Bench, Naidu observed that a former Supreme Court judge who came directly from the Bar had chosen not to touch substantial professional earnings "to avoid such allegations."

Justice Nagarathna responded by noting her own experience: "My income as a lawyer was much more than the salary when I joined as judge."

The matter remains pending.