A FIVE-JUDGE CONSTITUTION BENCH of the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on whether judicial officers who have earlier completed seven years of practice as advocates can stake claim to district judge posts earmarked for advocates practising at the Bar. The question arose after doubts were raised over the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which prescribes the qualifications for appointment as a district judge.
Article 233(2) says, “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 and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.”
The five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justices M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran reserved the judgment after hearing extensive arguments spread over three days – September 23, 24 and 25. The Constitution Bench considered an August 12 reference by a three-judge bench that comprised Chief Justice Gavai, and Justices Chandran and N.V. Anjaria.
The three-day-long hearing saw senior advocates Arvind Datar, Jayant Bhushan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy, and others argue for the petitioners, questioning the top Court judgment in the Dheeraj Mor (2020) case. The respondents were represented by senior advocates Chander Uday Singh, Nidhesh Gupta, Vijay Hansaria, and others, who defended the position settled in 2020 by the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor.
