Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1188

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R.GAVAI, CJI., K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Rejanish K.V. – Appellant
Versus
K. Deepa And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020 With Writ Petition (C) No. 759 of 2017, Writ Petition (C) No. 1278 of 2019, Review Petition (C) No. 381 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 396 of 2018, Review Petition (C) No. 385 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2020, Review Petition (C) No. 1027 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 405 of 2016, Review Petition (C) No. 379 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) 578 of 2018, Miscellaneous Application No. 179 of 2021 In Writ Petition(C) No. 405 of 2016, Review Petition (C) No. 669 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 999 of 2019, Review Petition (C) No. 380 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 222 of 2017, Miscellaneous Application No. 1050 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2020, Review Petition (C) No. 781 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 316 of 2017, Review Petition (C) No. 774 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 744 of 2019, Review Petition (C) No. 780 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 602 of 2016, Review Petition (C) No. 853 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 1080 of 2019, Review Petition (C) No. 621 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2020, Review Petition (C) No. 868 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 414 of 2016, Review Petition (C) No. 867 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 405 of 2016, Review Petition (C) No. 782 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 639 of 2018, Writ Petition (C) No. 857 of 2021, Review Petition (C) No. 989 of 2021 In Transfer Petition (C) No. 272 of 2018, Review Petition (C) No. 996 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1703 of 2020, Writ Petition (C) No. 864 of 2021, Review Petition (C) No. 835 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 2020, Review Petition (C) No. 836 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1706 of 2020, Review Petition (C) No. of 2025 @ Diary No. 18470 of 2021, Review Petition (C) No. 1354 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2020, Review Petition (C) No. 1042 of 2022 In Writ Petition (C) No. 999 of 2019, Civil Appeal No. ……….. of 2025 [Arising Out Of SLP (C) No. 3076 of 2023]
Decided On : 12-08-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the 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 the 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.

Judicial appointments under Article 233(2) necessitate clearer interpretation by a Constitution Bench, ensuring eligibility criteria for district judges adequately reflect independence and prior advocacy experience.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 233(2) - Review of previous decision - The court reviews its earlier judgment on judicial appointments, reaffirming that both promotion and LDCE pathways are valid for district judges. It recognizes the necessity of a wider bench for substantial constitutional interpretation. (Paras 1-29)

(B) Judiciary Independence - The appointment of judges must ensure independence from non-judicial sources, upholding the principle that judicial officers should not compete with bar advocates for the same positions.

(C) Interpretation of Law - The questions of eligibility concerning previous bar advocacy experience require clarity, warranting further examination by a larger Constitution Bench to resolve conflicting interpretations.

(D) Substantial Questions of Law - Substantial questions regarding eligibility and recruitment timelines necessitate constitutional interpretation by a five-judge bench. (Paras 22)

Facts of the case:
The batch of petitions seeks to review the decision in JUR regarding the eligibility of judicial officers for district judgeship and argues for a broader interpretation of Article 233(2) allowing previously practicing advocates to be considered for appointments.

Findings of Court:
The court finds that as the issues are substantial, they should be referred to a five-judge bench for authoritative guidance.

Issues: The primary issues involve the interpretation of the eligibility criteria under Article 233(2) and the appointment pathways for judicial officers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concludes that the interpretation of Article 233(2) concerning judicial appointments warrants a thorough examination by a larger bench, thereby reinforcing the importance of judicial independence.

Result: The present petitions are referred to a Constitution Bench consisting of five judges.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The case involves a review of a previous judgment concerning the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, specifically regarding the eligibility criteria for appointment as a district judge (!) (!) .
The core issue pertains to whether judicial officers with prior bar advocacy experience of seven years are eligible for appointment as district judges, and whether eligibility should be assessed at the time of application or at the time of appointment (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes that the interpretation of Article 233(2) involves substantial questions of law requiring authoritative resolution by a larger bench, specifically a Constitution Bench of five judges (!) (!) .
The Court notes that the matter was initially placed before a smaller bench of three judges, but considering the constitutional importance and the need for a definitive interpretation, it concludes that a five-judge bench is appropriate (!) (!) .
The Court highlights the significance of Article 145(3), which mandates that cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution be decided by a bench of five judges (!) (!) .
The Court refers to previous directions to place such constitutional questions before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate bench, reaffirming the need for a comprehensive constitutional interpretation (!) (!) .
The Court underscores the importance of judicial independence and the need for clear eligibility criteria that reflect this principle, especially in the context of judicial appointments from advocates and judicial officers (!) (!) (!) .
The Court ultimately decides to refer the substantial questions of law to a Constitution Bench of five judges for authoritative determination, and directs that the ongoing proceedings be stayed until the reference is resolved (!) (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes that the issues involved are of constitutional magnitude and require a thorough constitutional interpretation, reinforcing the importance of maintaining judicial independence and clarity in appointment procedures (!) (!) .
The decision emphasizes the procedural requirement that questions involving the interpretation of the Constitution, especially substantial questions of law, should be decided by a bench of five judges, aligning with constitutional provisions and judicial rules (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.

Table of Content
1. review petitions regarding judicial officer appointments (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding necessity of a constitution bench (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's analysis of past judgments on article 233 (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. substantial questions of law for constitution bench (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
5. reference to a constitution bench of five judges (Para 24)

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, CJI.

1. The present batch of petitions in effect seek review of the judgment and order dated 19th February 2020 passed by this Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi , (2020) 7 SCC 401 (hereinafter referred to as “JUR”) wherein a Bench of three learned Judges held that the members of the judicial service of a State could be appointed as district judges either by way of promotion or the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). It was further 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.

2. Along with the review petitions, many other writ petitions as well as special leave petitions have been filed, inter-alia, praying for a declaration that even those judicial officers who have an experience of seven 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.

3. We have heard Shri Jayant Bhushan, Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Shri V. Giri, Shri Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Shri Shoeb Alam, Shri Rajive Bhalla, learned Senior Counsel and other counsel appearing for different parties praying that the question with regard to interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution requires consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court.

4. We have also heard Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Shri C.U. Singh, Shri Jaideep Gupta, Shri A. Hariprasad, Shri Shekhar G Devasa, Shri A. M. Bujor Barua, Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel and other counsel praying that such a Reference is not necessary.

5. Learned counsel supporting the Reference have drawn the attention of this Court to the case of G. Sabitha and others v. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad Rep. by its Registrar General and others , Writ Petition (Civil) No. 316 of 2017 wherein vide order dated 10th May, 2018, this Court had recorded that the issue as to “whether the 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 is pending consideration before the Constitution Bench in SLP(C) No.14156 of 2015”.

6. It is submitted that in the said SLP(C) No. 14156 of 2015 i.e., JUR, though the issue was referred to a Constitution Bench, the same came to be decided by a Bench consisting of three learned Judges of this Court.

7. Attention of this Court is further drawn to the order dated 23rd January, 2018³[(2018) 4 SCC 619] passed by this Court in the JUR wherein after considering the different views in various pronouncements, this Court had found that the issue involved substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, this Court directed the matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench.

8. It is 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 ought to have been referred to a Bench consisting of five learned Judges and could not have been