Supreme Court Refers Crucial Question on Judicial Appointments to Constitution Bench.


12-August-2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court in K.V. Rejanish v/s K. Deepa & Others has referred a batch of petitions concerning the eligibility of judicial officers for appointment as District Judges to a Constitution Bench of five or more judges. The decision effectively re-opens a key legal question related to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of District Judges.

The matter arose from a review petition against a previous Supreme Court judgment (Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi) from February 2020. In that case, a three-judge bench had upheld rules that prevented judicial officers from being considered for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge, a channel reserved for advocates with at least seven years of practice.


 

 

The petitioners, including several judicial officers, argued that even if they are in the judicial service, those who have completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the service should still be eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges. This claim directly challenges the interpretation of Article 233(2), which stipulates that "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."

During the hearings, the Court heard arguments from lawyers on both sides, with some urging a reference to a larger bench and others opposing it. The Court noted that in a 2018 order related to the Dheeraj Mor case, it had already acknowledged that the issue involved a "substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2)." It was pointed out that despite this, the matter was decided by a three-judge bench, even though Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates a minimum of five judges for cases involving the interpretation of constitutional provisions.

The Supreme Court, after examining the language of Article 145(3) and considering its own precedents, concluded that the interpretation of Article 233(2) is a substantial constitutional question that must be resolved by a larger bench. The Court found that two specific issues require clarification:

  • Whether a judicial officer with seven years of prior experience at the Bar is eligible for appointment as an Additional District Judge against a vacancy reserved for the Bar.
  • Whether the eligibility for the post of District Judge must be assessed only at the time of appointment, or at the time of application, or both.

By referring the matter to a Constitution Bench, the Supreme Court has underscored the importance of these questions in shaping the career progression and appointment rules within the judiciary. The Court has directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate bench, and all related petitions will be held in abeyance until the larger bench decides the reference.