Rejanish K.V. vs. K. Deepa and Others
Background
A three-Judge Bench had referred substantial questions of law to a Constitution Bench concerning whether serving judicial officers (already in the subordinate judiciary) who have seven years' combined experience as advocates and judicial officers can compete for District Judge posts through the 25% "direct recruitment" (Bar) quota under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, and when eligibility for such appointment should be assessed. This batch of matters included a civil appeal, several writ petitions, and numerous review petitions/miscellaneous applications, largely arising from the Court's earlier decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, which had held that only persons presently practising as advocates/pleaders (not in-service judicial officers) could be appointed via that direct-recruitment stream.
Decision Breakdown
The Constitution Bench held that the interpretation given in Dheeraj Mor and the long line of judgments before it (starting from Satya Narain Singh) incorrectly read Article 233(2), and that treating the direct-recruitment quota as reserved exclusively for practising advocates effectively created an unconstitutional "quota" for advocates that the plain text of Article 233(2) does not support. The Court declined to apply stare decisis to preserve the 40-year-old wrong interpretation, holding that manifest constitutional errors should be corrected regardless of how long they have stood. It ruled: (i) judicial officers who had already completed seven years at the Bar before joining subordinate judicial service are entitled to be considered for District Judge appointment via direct recruitment; (ii) eligibility is to be assessed at the time of application; (iii)-(iv) a serving judicial officer with a combined seven years' experience as advocate and judicial officer is eligible; and (v) the minimum age for both advocates and judicial officers applying for this post is fixed at 35 years as on the date of application, to ensure a level playing field. This ruling was made prospective. It does not disturb selections or appointments already completed before this judgment, except where interim orders were already in place.
Lesson Learnt
Long-standing judicial precedent is not immune from correction when the Supreme Court finds it was based on a misreading of the Constitution: here, decades of practice barring in-service judicial officers from direct recruitment as District Judges was reversed because it was found to conflict with the plain text of Article 233(2); the change applies going forward, protecting past appointments already made.