A five-judge Constitution Bench is hearing if judicial officers with seven years’ bar practice before joining service can be appointed as district judges under the bar quota.
CJI Gavai and Justice Sundresh warned that lack of timely promotions drives bright entrants to resign, calling it “deceiving the aspirations of young minds.”
The case turns on interpreting Article 233, with key questions on combining bar and judicial service experience to determine eligibility.
The Supreme Court noted the "stagnation" in the district judiciary and highlighted that several "brilliant candidates" who only leave the service after a few years since they are not appointed district judges, even when they reach superannuation.
According to PTI, during a hearing on a legal question, a five-judge Constitution bench consisting of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices M M Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S C Sharma, and K Vinod Chandran noted whether judicial officers who have seven years of experience as advocates before joining the bench can be appointed as district judges under vacancies designated for the bar.
“The reason why we are not getting very good people for the appointment of civil judges is because they feel they get completely stagnated… I will get into the service and now for a complete 15-16 years, I will not even become a district judge,” he said.
The CJI and Justice Sundresh said many "bright young entrants" leave the service after realising they might have to wait 15–16 years for promotion.
“Many brilliant candidates who join (lower judiciary)... leave in two years, as they do not reach up to the principal district judge, they get retired. They get stagnated in the (lower) district judiciary for years together,” the CJI said.
Justice Sundresh described his former law clerk's experience.
"One of my law clerks back in the High Court, I pursued her to take up the exam for the (lower) judiciary…she was a topper. Last time she met me, and said she wanted to resign. It is deceiving the aspirations of the young mind,” Justice Sundresh said.
The bench is considering issues on how Article 233 of the Constitution, which regulates district judge appointments, should be interpreted.
“Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State,” Article 233 reads.
It adds, “A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the high court for appointment.” Bhushan said several judicial officers, despite completing seven years of practice as advocates before joining the subordinate judiciary, were barred from applying under the bar quota.
Reportedly, their petitions before various high courts were dismissed, relying on earlier judgments.
“The issue has now culminated into a constitutional interpretation question of great importance,” he argued.
"Whether a judicial officer, who has already completed seven years at the bar before joining judicial service, was entitled to appointment as an additional district judge against bar quota vacancies" was one of the four queries Bhushan posed. The second issue he posed was, "Is it necessary to evaluate eligibility for district judge appointments at the application, appointment, or both stages?"
According to him, the third question was whether Article 233(2) grants those who are currently employed by the Union or State judicial services additional eligibility. Regarding the fourth question, he stated, "Would a candidate be eligible for a district judge appointment if they had served as an advocate and a judge for a total of seven years?"
Bhushan traced the history of district judge appointments by using the Indian Civil Services Act, 1861, and arguments in constituent assemblies.
On September 24, the hearing would resume.
The CJI-ed bench announced on September 12 that it would begin hearing on the matters on September 23 and hear arguments for three days, ending on September 25.
According to the bench, it will need to investigate whether prior judicial service and bar practice experience can be combined to determine eligibility.
Nonetheless, the CJI issued a warning against interpreting the law in a way that would result in "a situation where a person with just two years' practice becomes eligible." Lower judicial officials are promoted to the positions of ADJs, which are part of the higher judicial service. Additionally, attorneys with at least seven years of Bar experience are directly recruited to fill them.
