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.

Rejanish K. V. vs K. Deepa - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1188

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1188

B. R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N. V. ANJARIA
Rejanish K. V. – Appellant
Versus
K. Deepa – Respondent

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.

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 :

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 Hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document