New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that judicial officers who have completed seven years of practice as advocates before joining the judiciary are eligible for appointment as district judges under vacancies reserved for members of the bar.
A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S.C. Sharma, and K. Vinod Chandran delivered two separate but concurring judgments affirming that such judicial officers are entitled to be considered under the direct recruitment process meant exclusively for advocates.
“Judicial officers who have already completed seven years at the bar before entering service will be entitled to appointment as district judges,” Chief Justice Gavai observed, emphasizing that the interpretation of the constitutional scheme must be “organic” rather than “pedantic.”
The Bench directed all state governments, in consultation with their respective High Courts, to amend relevant recruitment rules within three months to align with the Court’s ruling.
Justice Sundresh, in a concurring opinion, cautioned that ignoring emerging talent would “lead to mediocrity as against excellence,” which could “weaken the foundation and undermine the judicial structure.” He noted that “greater competition will serve better quality.”
The detailed judgment is awaited.
The verdict follows a marathon three-day hearing in September, during which the Court reserved its decision on over 30 petitions addressing issues with far-reaching implications for judicial recruitment nationwide.
At the heart of the matter was the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of district judges, and whether judicial officers who had completed seven years of practice before joining service could be considered for bar quota vacancies for additional district judges.
