The Supreme Court on Friday scheduled a three-day hearing from September 23 to examine whether judicial officers, who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the bench, are entitled to be appointed as Additional District Judges (ADJs) against vacancies reserved for advocates.
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 will hear arguments from September 23 to 25.
Key Issue Before the Court
The central question is whether the combined experience of practice as an advocate and subsequent service as a judicial officer can be counted to meet the eligibility criteria for ADJ posts under the Bar quota. Article 233 of the Constitution mandates that only those who have “not less than seven years” of advocacy experience are eligible for appointment as district judges, provided they are recommended by the High Court.
The bench will also consider whether eligibility is to be assessed at the stage of application, appointment, or both.
Court’s Directions
While fixing the schedule, Chief Justice Gavai said, “We will first hear those who are supporting the proposition, then others will respond. Each side will get one-and-a-half days.”
The court appointed advocate Ajay Kumar Singh as the nodal counsel for those supporting the proposition and lawyer John Mathew as nodal counsel for the opposing side. Both groups have been directed to prepare a common “convenience compilation” for smoother proceedings.
CJI Gavai, however, cautioned against an interpretation that could open the door for candidates with only minimal Bar experience. “We cannot have a situation where a person with just two years’ practice becomes eligible,” he remarked.
Background of the Case
The matter reached the apex court after the Kerala High Court set aside the appointment of a district judge, holding that he was not a practising advocate at the time of appointment since he had already joined judicial service.
The petitioner had, however, completed seven years of practice at the Bar before applying for the post. On August 12, a three-judge bench headed by the CJI referred the issue to a larger bench, noting its constitutional significance.
“We refer the aforesaid issues for consideration of a Constitution Bench of five Judges of this court. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for obtaining appropriate orders,” the bench had observed in its referral order.
The posts of ADJs are part of the higher judicial service and are ordinarily filled through promotion from the subordinate judiciary or direct recruitment from the Bar. The Supreme Court’s ruling will clarify whether judicial officers with prior Bar experience can compete for vacancies reserved for advocates, a question that could reshape recruitment norms for higher judicial service across states.
