New Delhi: In a ruling that opens up avenues to the judiciary, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that magistrates, civil judges with at least seven years of practice at the Bar before joining judicial service are eligible for the posts of district judges.
Underlining that building a strong foundation is only possible when the best talent is attracted, it said that excluding a group of persons from competing for a post meant to serve the public was unconstitutional.
Until now, only advocates were eligible for district judgeships under Article 233 of the Constitution, a provision that excluded judicial officers with experience from applying for these posts.
“An absolute bar on persons in the judicial service would certainly prevent meritorious candidates from competing for the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, which would be an affront to the constitutional spirit,” the five-judge Constitution bench said in its 139-page ruling. “When the appointments are made solely on the basis of merit, then the claim of meritorious judicial officers cannot be overlooked. It is only merit and merit alone that shall matter.”
The judgment came in two parts, with the first 119 pages authored by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, alongside Justices Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, and the second by Justice M.M. Sundresh.
The top court directed state governments to consult with their high courts and frame rules in accordance with its ruling, within three months.
The court pointed out that the status quo before the 9 October ruling was that emerging talent was being allowed to leave, as many promising candidates were not identified or nurtured at the earliest, causing a situation of “mediocrity” as opposed to “excellence”.
It said that greater competition would result in a better quality of judges and that denying a category of judicial officers from competing for the posts of district judges, while allowing advocates to compete, violated the Constitution’s basic structure under Article 14, which guaranteed the right to equality.
The decision also allows for reasonable classification, only if it’s based on “intelligible differentia”, a legal principle that refers to a logical, clear, and justifiable basis for a law to differentiate between groups of people or situations.
“Maintaining and enhancing the quality at the bottom of the judicial pyramid would strengthen the faith of the public in the subordinate judiciary, which in turn would reduce the filing of appeals before the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and therefore considerably reduce the overall pendency,” the court added.
Implications of the ruling
Legal experts said the ruling would have wide-ranging implications.
Former Delhi High Court judge and Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh HC Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who argued the case, told ThePrint, “The rationale behind today’s decision was more appointments for in-service candidates, but we will have to see how this plays out on the ground. Will it achieve this objective? We will get to know that in a few years. Although the ruling essentially opens up the Bar quota, which was earlier only for advocates, we still need to assess its impact.”
Gurdeep Singh, District Judge (Commercial Court), hailed the court’s ruling as a “landmark judgment which brings justice to entry-level judges who were earlier deprived of it on account of the feudal mindset of the higher judiciary”.
“It was absolutely illogical as to why a practicing lawyer could compete for judgeship of the district court, but a judicial officer with the same number of years of service cannot,” added Singh, who also headed the Delhi Judicial Academy.
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that judicial officers with seven years of practice or more are eligible to be considered and appointed as district judges or additional district judges under Article 233 of the Constitution.
The provision deals with the appointment of district judges and says that the posting and promotion of district judges shall be made by the Governor in consultation with the high courts.
It specifies that a candidate who isn’t already in service of the state government or the Centre will be eligible for appointment as a district court judge, if they’ve been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years, and if they were recommended by the high court for appointment.
“We, therefore, find that barring a person, who is otherwise eligible but at the time of advertisement, is in judicial service of the Union or of the State and is prevented from competing with the candidates who are advocates having practice of seven years, for appointment(s) in the stream of direct recruitment would result in denial of an equal treatment,” the court ruled.
The court overruled its rulings in the Satya Narain Singh vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (1985) and Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi (2020) cases, saying that it had misconstrued the law laid down by the larger benches in earlier cases.
In the 1985 case, the apex court held that the posts of district judges are not available to in-service candidates and can be filled only by advocates having a requisite number of years of practice.
On the other hand, in the 2020 ruling, it said that Article 233(2) does not allow those already in service of the Centre or state government, which includes judicial officers. The court also said that the constitutional provision only allows an advocate or pleader to be eligible for appointment as a district judge, if they have at least seven years of practice.
In a nutshell, it ruled that only practicing advocates with experience of seven years or more are eligible for a district judgeship.
However, in the present case, the SC noted that these decisions were a departure from the court’s own rulings by larger benches, in cases like Rameshwar Dayal vs State of Punjab (1960), where a Constitution or five-judge bench found that candidates should be appointed as district judges, despite them serving the state government on their date of appointment.
“The experience judicial officers gain while working as judges is much greater than the one a person gains while working as an advocate,” the court said, adding that before commencing their work as judicial officers, the judges are also required to undergo rigorous training of at least one year.
Therefore, the court said it saw no reason to deny an opportunity to such young, talented judicial officers to compete with the advocates or pleaders having seven years’ practice in the matter of direct recruitment to the post of district judge.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Reform or redundancy? A breakdown of DAKSH report on state of commercial tribunals in India