Supreme Court: While considering the appeal seeking review of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401, where it was held that the members of the Judicial Service of a State could be appointed as District Judges either by way of promotion or via Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE); the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI.*, K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration before a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges of the Supreme Court:
- 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?
-
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?
In Dheeraj Mor (supra), it was held that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution an advocate or pleader with 7 years of practice could be appointed as District Judge by way of direct recruitment, in case he is not already in the judicial service of the Union or a State. “Thus, it was held that the rules framed by the High Court debarring judicial officers from staking their claim as against the posts reserved for direct recruitment from Bar would not be ultra vires to the Constitution”.
The Court also noted that along with the review petitions, many other petitions have been filed inter-alia praying for a declaration that, even those judicial officers who have an experience of 7 years at the Bar prior to their joining as judicial officers, would be entitled to be appointed as District Judges via direct recruitment under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
The counsels supporting the reference, submitted that in view of the issue involving interpretation of Article 233(2) and the language used in Article 145(3) of the Constitution, the matter should be referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench.
Per contra, counsels opposing the reference, submitted that Dheeraj Mor (supra) only culled out the principle laid down in various decisions such as Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab, (1960) SCC OnLine SC 123 and Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1966) SCC OnLine SC 35.
Court’s Assessment:
The Court noted that in the case of Rameshwar Dayal (supra), the question was whether the years of practice that the said candidates had in Lahore High Court before the partition of India and before the establishment of the Punjab High Court, would also be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting of the period of 7 years. To answer the said question, the Constitution Bench placed reliance on Clause 6(2) of the High Court (Punjab) Order, 1947 read with Section 8(3) of the Bar Council Act, 1926 to hold that an Advocate of the Punjab High Court was entitled to count the period of his practice in the Lahore High Court for determining his standing in the Bar.
In Chandra Mohan (supra), the question arose whether the Governor can appoint a person who is in the police, excise, revenue or such other services as a District Judge? The Constitution Bench therein observed that acceptance of such position would hit the very principle of judiciary being an independent service and would take the nation back to the pre-independence era and that too to the conditions prevailing in the Princely States when appointments in the judicial service were made from police and other departments. It was further observed in this case that though Article 233(1) of the Constitution is nothing more than a declaration of the general power of the Governor in the matter of appointment of district judges, it does not lay down the qualifications of the candidates to be appointed or denote the sources from which the recruitment has to be made. The Constitution Bench, therefore, held that the term “service” mentioned under Article 233(2) of the Constitution can only mean the judicial service.
Perusing Rameshwar Dayal (supra) and Chandra Mohan (supra), the present Bench observed that issues therein raised were different from the one which are under consideration in the instant matter.
Referring to Article 145(3) of the Constitution, the Court pointed out that it provides the minimum number of Judges for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or for the purpose of hearing any Reference under Article 143.
The Court noted that issues involved in the present appeal require interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court vide order dated 23-1-2018 had directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India in which subsequently Dheeraj Mor (supra) was pronounced. Ordinarily, in view of the question involving interpretation of Article 233(2), the matter ought to have been placed before a Bench of 5 Judges. However, it appears that the same was placed before the Bench of 3 Judges and decision in Dheeraj Mor (supra) was delivered.
Therefore, perusing the text of Article 233(2) of the Constitution and in light of the submissions advanced by the counsels on the interpretation of the provision, the Court formulated 2 issues as substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The matter was henceforth referred for consideration by a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges and the Registry was directed to place the matter before Chief Justice of India for obtaining appropriate orders.
[Rejanish K.V v. K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1678, decided on 12-8-2025]
*Judgment by Justice B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice of India
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kanyalur, Adv. Mr. Akash Kukreja, Adv. Ms. Divya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv. Ms. Soumya Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Yatharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Divesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, AOR Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Adv. Mr. Shravanth Paruchuri, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. P. Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. M. Firoz, Adv. Mr. Ashish Jacob Mathew, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apurv Singhvi, Adv. Ms. Barnali Basak, Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. Suprabh Kumar Roshan, Adv. Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Harsh Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Shashank Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Md. Naushad Alam, AOR Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Archana Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Rashid N. Azam , AOR Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Santosh Kumar Kolkonda, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Adv. Mr. N.leela Vara Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kalra, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Niraj Gupta, AOR Mrs. Anshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Subham Gupta, Adv. Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Ms. Vidya Vijay Sing Pawar, Adv. Mr. Hari Om Singh Rajaur, Adv. Mr. Anurag Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Ms. Tina Garg, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ems Anam, Adv. Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR Mr. Biju P Raman, Adv. Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv. Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Vaibhav, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Makan, Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Manu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Ms. Sindoora Vnl, AOR Ms. Thithiksha Padmam, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv. Mr. Naman Jain, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Nihant Panicker, Adv. Ms. Divya Nair, Adv. Mr. Korada Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Jayasheela Y, Adv. Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, AOR Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Adv. Ms. Vani Singhal, Adv. Mr. Prasanna, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. A. Hariprasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Swathi H Prasad, Adv. Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Tina Garg, AOR M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kotian, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. Mr. Prashanth Dixit, Adv. Mr. John Mathew, AOR Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR Mr. Rashid N. Azam , AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Triloki Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. B. Mohan, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjana Jain, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
