Sunil Samdaria v. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors.
Background
A practicing advocate of the Rajasthan High Court filed a writ petition challenging a May 2017 notification appointing two retired District Judges as Additional Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. He argued, first, that their appointments (running only until they would turn 62, which was less than two years) violated Article 224 of the Constitution, which he said required a minimum two-year term, and second, that since both had already retired from judicial service before the notification was issued, they were not eligible under Article 217(2)(a), which requires having "held" judicial office.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected both challenges. On the tenure point, it held that Article 224(1) only fixes a maximum period of "not exceeding two years" for an Additional Judge's appointment, not a minimum, so an appointment running only until the judge's retirement age (shorter than two years) was perfectly valid; the Constitution Bench ruling in S.P. Gupta did not lay down any minimum-term requirement. On the eligibility point, the Court held that Article 217(2)(a) requires a person to have "held" judicial office for at least ten years at some point, not that they must still be in judicial service on the date of the notification: the two respondents had already been in the "zone of consideration" and recommended while still serving, and retirement before the notification was finally issued (due to the normal time taken in the appointment process) did not disqualify them. The Court distinguished the Kumar Padma Prasad precedent as dealing with a different question. The petition was dismissed, though the Court added observations urging that judicial appointment timelines be expedited to avoid such situations.
Lesson Learnt
The constitutional cap of "two years" for Additional Judges is a ceiling, not a floor: a shorter appointment (e.g., ending at the judge's retirement age) is lawful; and for eligibility purposes, what matters is that a person held the required judicial office for ten years at some point before being recommended, not that they are still in service on the date the formal appointment notification is eventually issued.