Supreme Court: In a landmark ruling, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai, CJI.*, M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S.C. Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., while deciding a reference on issues related to appointment of Judicial Officers as District Judges, held the following:
-
Judicial Officers who have already completed 7 years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service, would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process.
-
The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application.
-
Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) of the Constitution for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge; in order to provide a level playing field, the Court directed that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have 7 years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate.
-
A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of 7 years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer, would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution.
-
In order to ensure level playing field, the Court directed that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application.
-
The Court held that view taken in Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (1985) 1 SCC 225, till Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, (2018) 4 SCC 619, which takes a view contrary to what has been held above, do not lay down the correct proposition of law.
Background and Issues for Consideration:
The present case came up before the Constitution Bench when a 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI*, K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., in Rejanish K.V v. K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1678, formulated substantial questions of law for consideration before a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges of the Supreme Court. During the hearing before the Constitution Bench, additional questions of law were formulated and added by the Court:
(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?
(iii) Whether there is any eligibility prescribed for a person already in the judicial service of the Union or State under Article 233(2) of the Constitution for being appointed as District Judge?
(iv) Whether a person who has been Civil Judge for a period of seven years or has been an Advocate and Civil Judge for a combined period of seven years or more than seven years would be eligible for appointment as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution.
(v) furthermore, the Court had to consider the interpretation of Article 233(2) and the correctness of the findings made in Dheeraj Mor (supra).
Court’s Assessment:
Referring to Article 233 of the Constitution, the Court applied the rule of literal interpretation to analyse the provision. The Court stated that Article 233(1) of the Constitution provides for appointments of persons as district judges in a State so also for posting and promotions thereof. It further provides that such appointments shall be made by the Governor of the State concerned in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
The Court noted that a plain reading of Article 233(2) reveals that for appointment of a person to the post of district judge, two streams are provided- (i) a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State; and (ii) an advocate or a pleader if he has been an advocate or a pleader for not less than seven years.
The Court pointed out that Article 233(2) does not restrict appointment of persons employed in the Union or the State to the post of district judges but enables, in addition advocates or pleaders who have seven years’ practice, to be appointed as district judges. The appointment or promotion and the consequential posting has to be made under Article 233(1), while Article 233(2) provides for two sources of appointment. The plain meaning coming out of the words employed does not provide any restriction to judicial officers from direct recruitment. On the other hand, it enables a judicial officer to be appointed as a district judge by direct recruitment even without the prescription of a period of practice.
Referring to relevant precedents, the Court pointed out that Article 233 of the Constitution is a self-contained provision regarding the appointment of district judges.
Taking note of the Respondents’ argument that Article 233(1) deals with promotions and the only manner in which in-service candidates could be appointed as district judges is by way of promotion and further that the appointments made under Article 233(2) have to be restricted only to the advocates or a pleader having seven years’ practice; the Court opined that Respondents’’ contention was not in consonance with the textual and contextual meaning of Article 233. The Court explained that though Article 233(2) begins in a negative manner, however, if the interpretation as sought to be given in Satya Narain Singh (supra) till Dheeraj Mor (supra) is to be accepted, it will render the first part of Article 233(2) of the Constitution redundant.
The Court thus opined that Article 233(2) contains provisions with regard to qualification for appointment of district judge wherein it provides that for anyone who is not already in service of the Union or of the State, such a person will be eligible to be appointed as district judge only if he has been for not less than 7 years an advocate or a pleader. However, if a person is already in judicial service of the Union or of the State, no such requirement is provided for. The Court further opined that if Article 233(2) of the Constitution is not read in this manner, then the words “a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State” will be rendered redundant.
Thus, the Court stated that a combined reading of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 233 would, therefore, reveal that the Constitution under Article 233(2) does not provide for qualification for an in-service candidate for direct recruitment.
Referring to Satya Narain Singh (supra), the Court noted that judgment did not lay down the correct position of law. The Court opined that the finding in Satya Narain Singh (supra) that Article 233(2) is confined in its application to persons “not already in the service of the Union or of the State”, is erroneous. It was further opined that the finding that there is a clear distinction between the two sources of recruitment, and the dichotomy is maintained, is also not correct. Further, the finding that the two streams are separate until they come together by appointment and the “same ship cannot sail both the streams simultaneously” does not lay down the correct law. The Court further found that observations made in Satya Narain Singh (supra) that if a person who is already in service, is appointed as a district judge on the recommendation of the High Court, thereby overlooking the claims of all other seniors in the subordinate judiciary, would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is not correct.
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.
The Court thus found that barring an eligible person, who at the time of advertisement, is in judicial service of the Union or of the State and is prevented from competing with the candidates who are advocates having practice of 7 years, for appointment(s) in the stream of direct recruitment, would result in denial of an equal treatment.
“When the appointments are made solely on the basis of merit, then the claim of meritorious judicial officers cannot be overlooked. It is only merit and merit alone that shall matter”.
The Court took note of the recommendations made by Shetty Commission, wherein it was recorded that a majority of the High Courts and the Service Associations were of the view that the service judges should be given an opportunity for direct recruitment as district judges. The Court expressed its agreement with the observations made by the Shetty Commission, according to which, in order to promote efficiency in the cadre of district judges, the young talented meritorious judicial officers should not be denied an opportunity.
Commenting upon the experience of a Judicial Officer, the Court noted that an advocate who joins the judicial service only suspends his right to practice and continues to be on the roll of the State Bar Council. The experience the judicial officers gain while working as judges is much greater than the one, a person gains while working as an advocate. Apart from that, before commencing their work as judicial officers, the judges are also required to undergo rigorous training of at least one year. “When Government pleaders and Assistant Public Prosecutor who were still practicing in courts were held to be competent to apply for direct recruitment to the post of district judge, can the judicial officers before whom they practice, considered to be inferior. In fact, there is an anomaly insofar as an Assistant Public Prosecutor being entitled to participate in the direct recruitment of district judges, while the judicial officers before whom they argue case are disabled”. The Court, therefore, saw no reason to deny an opportunity to such young talented judicial officers to compete with the advocates/pleaders having seven years’ practice in the matter of direct recruitment to the post of district judge.
Observing that interpretation of the constitutional provisions cannot be pedantic. It has to be organic. A purposeful interpretation has to be adopted. The interpretation which advances the purpose of bringing in efficiency in the district judiciary and permitting a broad-based competition amongst all the eligible candidates will have to be accepted. Therefore, the Court opined that judgments of the Court right from Satya Narain Singh (supra) till Dheeraj Mor (supra) did not lay down a correct proposition of law.
On the issue of Eligibility of a Judicial Officer for Direct Recruitment, the Court opined that for bringing the advocates and the in-service candidates at the same level, it will be appropriate that the rules provide that an in-service candidate should be eligible for recruitment to the post of district judge directly only if he has a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and a judicial officer.
Similarly, if an advocate is participating in the selection process and he was a member of judicial service in the past, then his experience as a judicial officer also cannot be ignored. His experience as an advocate prior to joining judicial service, his experience as a judicial officer and his experience as an advocate after leaving the judicial service will all have to be taken together. Such a candidate will be eligible only if he has a combined experience as an advocate and as a judicial officer for seven years.
Commenting on the “heartburn amongst the judicial officers in a situation where a junior gets promoted”, the Court said that the in-service candidates though junior, will have to compete before being selected with the advocates as also their seniors, who also will be qualified, and only meritorious candidates would be selected and appointed.
The Court did not accept the contentions related to 25% quota of direct recruitment reserved only for practising advocates, explaining that a plain and literal reading of Article 233(2) does not contemplate such a situation.
In view of the doctrine of Stare Decisis, the Court held that all the judgments right from Satya Narain Singh (supra) onwards till Dheeraj Mor (supra) have incorrectly applied the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab, (1960) SCC OnLine SC 123 and Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1966) SCC OnLine SC 35 and have inconsistently interpreted Article 233. As a result, by applying the law laid down by this line of judgments, injustice was meted out to the members of the judicial services, thereby depriving them from participating in the selection process for the post of district judges by way of direct recruitment.
The Court clarified that decision in the present judgment will be applicable only from the date of this judgment and in no case, any selection process completed, or any appointment made prior to this judgment would be affected, except in cases wherein any interim order(s) were passed by the High Courts or Supreme Court. In such cases, the issue would now be governed by the orders to be passed by the Bench hearing the matters.
[Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3947 OF 2020, decided on 9-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Nodal Counsel: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. John Mathew, Adv.
For Appellant(s)/Applicant(s): Mr. Jayant Bhusan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Yatharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Amartya Bhusan, Adv. Mr. Yogit Mehra, Adv. Mr. Divesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shrishti Gautam, Adv. Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Rohan J. Alva, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, AOR Ms. Charu Mathur, Adv. Mr. Anant Sanghi, Adv Ms. Gayatri T., Adv. Mr. Vansh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, AOR Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv. Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Ms. Rohini Narayanan, Adv. Mr. Sanket, Adv. Ms. Nehaol Venkateshwara, Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Adv. Mr. Amith S J, Adv. Ms. Harshika Verma, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv. Ms. Triyyambika Rao, Adv. Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Abhishekh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, Adv. Mr. Shravanth Paruchuri, Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Ms. Barnali Basak, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. Shashank Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv. Mr. Sanyam Maan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv. Mr. V. Puneedhan, Adv. Ms. D. Naveena, Adv. Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv. Ms. Saumya Saraswat, Adv. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Mr. Pratap Shanker, Adv. Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv. Mr. Kumar Manish, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. George Poonthottam, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. M Firoz, Adv. Mr. K. M. Firoz, Adv. Mr. Ashish Jacob Mathew, Adv. Mr. Navaneeth Krishnan A.l, Adv. Ms. Silpa Sreekumar, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Abhilash M.r., Adv. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Bhumika Yadav, Adv. Kashish Jain, Adv. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rashid N. Azam, AOR Mr. Nirmal Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Rinny Abraham, Adv. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Nu Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Srikar Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam,Sr.Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Prafulla, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Adv. Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra, Adv. Mr. N Leela Vara Prasad, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saket Jee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kalra, Adv. Mr. Niraj Gupta, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Arshit Torgal, Adv. For M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Md. Naushad Alam, AOR Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Vij, Adv. Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Ritul Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,Sr.Adv. Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy,Sr.Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. Ravindra Harpale,Adv. Mr. Sagar V. Kasar,Adv. Mr. parnam Prabhakar,Adv. Ms. Vangala Sailaja,Adv. Ms. Drishti Narbar,Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran,Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh,Adv. Mr. Chittimalla Chandarakala,Adv. Mr. Narendar Rao Thaneer,Adv. Mr. Batchu Jagadish Kumar,Adv. Mr. B. Pallesh Kalshmi,Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava,Adv. Mr. D. Srinivas,Adv. Mr. MVS Anil Kumar Rajagiri,Adv. Ms. Palisi Bharat Kumar,Adv. Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Gautam, AOR Mr. Devashish Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Madhura Mn, Adv. Ms. Ansh Gulati, Adv. Ms. Kanak Grover, Adv. Mr. Daksh Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Adv. Ms. Gauri Bedi, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Misra, Adv. Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Mr. Hari Om Singh,Adv. Ms. Vandana,Adv. Mr. Aditya K.,Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Kumar Murlidhar,Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey,Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)/Applicant(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. Ms. Bidya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Katyayani Suhrud, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kalaiyarasan, Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Jimut Mohopatra, Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Adv. Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Adv. Ms. Nandini Rai, Adv. Mr. Aashay Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Boudhik Garg, Adv. M/s Kavya Verma, Adv. Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv. Mr. Atharv Joshi, Adv. Ms. Muskan Bensla, Adv. Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR Mr. Robin Singh, Adv. Mr. Kapil Balwani, Adv. Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, AOR Mr. Prasanna, Adv. Mrs. Vani Singhal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nivedita Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Avantika Shankas, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Jolly, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. Kanav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajat Pandey, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Makan, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Boudhik Garg, Adv. M/s Kavya Verma, Adv. Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv. Mr. Atharv Joshi, Adv. Ms. Muskan Bensla, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Viraj M. Parakh, Adv. Mr. Mayur Saavarkar, 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. Meesala Venu Gopal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Korada Pramod Kumar, Adv. Ms. Divya Nair, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Dr. Kk Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nitya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. A. Hariprasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Swathi H Prasad, Adv. Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Adv. Mr. Ajaya Kumar K.r., Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv. Mr. John Mathew Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. S A Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Prafulla, Adv. Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. M V S Anil Kumar Rajagiri, Adv. Mr. Pasili Bharat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Kavya Manuja, Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Mr. Rashid N. Azam, AOR Mr. Nirmal Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Rinny Abraham, Adv. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Faizan, Adv. Mr. Firoz I Khan, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Fatima Parveen, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. S A Singh, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. K R Anand, Adv. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Prachi Sohi, Adv. Ms. Pooja Devi, Adv. Mr. Vijender Mann, Adv. Mr. A M Bujor Barua, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Deb Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Mrs. A Deepa, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR Mr. Pramod Sharma Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Ankur Mishra Adv Mr. Santosh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Bhaimad, Adv. Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Adv. Mrs. Arpana Soni, Adv. Mrs. Parveen Qureshi, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Aman Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Uddaish Palya, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. M.p. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Bharti, Adv. Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv. Mr. Virag Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR Ms. Rupali Panwar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. Mr. Avinash Singh, Adv. Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Satyam Chand Soriya,Adv. Mr. Pawas Agarwal, AOR Mr. Sagar Tanwar,Adv. Ms. Ruby Choudhary,Adv. Mr. Sonu,Adv. Mr. Triloki Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Adv. Ms. J. Akshitha, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Jain, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv Mr. T. Singhdev, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Ms. Barnali Basak, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. Shashank Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv. Mr. Sanyam Maan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv.
