Supreme Court Refers Questions on Article 233(2) to Five‑Judge Bench Over Eligibility of Judicial Officers for Bar Vacancies

A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria heard a batch of connected appeals, writ petitions and review petitions raising the question whether persons who had completed seven years at the Bar prior to joining the subordinate judicial service could still be appointed to district judge posts reserved for direct recruitment from the Bar under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The matters arose from challenges to the decision in Dheeraj Mor (JUR) and related litigation concerning the interpretation of Article 233(2) and the proper size of the Bench required to decide substantial constitutional questions under Article 145(3).

The Court summarized that the issues involved a “substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2)” and observed that, in view of Article 145(3), those questions ought to be determined by a Constitution Bench of not less than five Judges. The Court noted earlier authority including Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan but found that the present questions were materially different and required fuller consideration. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Upon a perusal of the text of Article 233(2) and in light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the interpretation of the provision, we are of the considered view that the following two issues are substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution: (i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy? (ii) Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both?” The Court therefore referred those questions for consideration by a five‑judge Constitution Bench and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Background

The litigation originated from conflicting views on whether judicial officers who previously practised at the Bar for seven years before entering judicial service could later claim posts reserved for direct recruitment from the Bar. A three‑judge Bench in Dheeraj Mor (JUR) had held that district judges could be appointed either by promotion or by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and that an advocate or pleader with seven years' practice could be directly appointed under Article 233(2), thereby validating High Court rules that barred serving judicial officers from contesting Bar‑reserved vacancies. Multiple writ petitions, special leave petitions and review petitions challenged or sought clarification of that rule and contended that the seven‑year Bar requirement should be satisfied even if the candidate later joined the judicial service.

Counsel on both sides advanced detailed submissions. Senior counsel for petitioners urged that the issue involved interpretation of Article 233(2) and the constitutionality of rules which disbarred judicial officers with prior Bar experience from Bar vacancies, and that Article 145(3) required a five‑judge Bench. Opposing counsel relied on prior Constitution Bench authority (including Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan) and submitted that the three‑judge decision in JUR merely applied established principles. The Court examined Article 145(3) and precedent and concluded that the present questions were distinct and substantial and therefore required referral under Article 145(3). The Court quoted Article 233(2): “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.” The final operative order referred the two identified issues to a Constitution Bench of five Judges and directed that the batch of petitions be listed for hearing after the Reference was decided.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020 and connected matters (2025 INSC 965) Case Title: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Others and connected matters Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Jayant Bhushan (Senior Counsel), Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu (Senior Counsel), Dr. Menaka Guruswamy (Senior Counsel), Shri V. Giri (Senior Counsel), Shri Anand Sanjay M Nuli (Senior Counsel), Shri Shoeb Alam (Senior Counsel), Shri Rajive Bhalla (Senior Counsel) and other counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Nidhesh Gupta (Senior Counsel), Shri C.U. Singh (Senior Counsel), Shri Jaideep Gupta (Senior Counsel), Shri A. Hariprasad (Senior Counsel), Shri Shekhar G Devasa (Senior Counsel), Shri A. M. Bujor Barua (Senior Counsel), Shri R. Basant (Senior Counsel) and other counsel