Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The case also involved legal challenges to appointment procedures, with the Court affirming the importance of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court regarding eligibility and experience ["SMT.LILLY KRISHNAN, vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["M.S. Abigail Hmingthanpari D/o V.L. Tinbiaka vs Gauhati High Court, Rep. by the Registrar General - Gauhati"]- ["REJANISH K.V vs K. DEEPA - Supreme Court"]- ["K.V.Rejanish vs K.Deepa - Kerala"]- ["REJANISH K.V vs K. DEEPA - Supreme Court"]- ["SMT.LILLY KRISHNAN, vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]
In the realm of judicial appointments, precision in eligibility criteria is paramount to upholding the integrity of the judiciary. The Supreme Court case of Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa has set a significant precedent, clarifying the strict requirements for appointment as a District Judge. This ruling emphasizes that candidates must typically be practicing advocates immediately prior to appointment, shedding light on constitutional provisions and long-standing precedents. Whether you're a legal professional, aspiring judge, or simply interested in India's judicial system, understanding this case is crucial.
The landmark case Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa (Civil Appeal No. 3947/2020) addressed whether Sri K.V. Rejanish qualified for appointment as a District Judge Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 1089. The central question revolved around his professional status at the time of appointment: was he a practicing advocate with the requisite experience, or did his role in judicial service suffice? IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877
Article 233(2) of the Constitution stipulates that a person shall not be eligible for appointment as a District Judge unless they have been an advocate for not less than seven years or held a judicial office for at least five years IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877. The Supreme Court interpreted this strictly, holding that the seven-year period as an advocate must be immediately prior to the appointmentSAURAV YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2020 7 Supreme 243.
In this case, the appellant, Sri Rejanish, had been appointed as a Munsiff/Magistrate before his District Judge appointment, placing him in judicial service rather than as a practicing advocate at the critical time Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 1089. The Court ruled this disqualified him, reinforcing that eligibility hinges on status at the moment of appointment, not prior or subsequent circumstances SAURAV YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2020 7 Supreme 243.
The judgment drew heavily from established case law:- Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2010): The Supreme Court clarified that a candidate must be a practicing advocate at the time of appointmentSAURAV YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2020 7 Supreme 243.- Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab (1961): While approving certain judicial service appointments, it underscored strict adherence to status at appointment SAURAV YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2020 7 Supreme 243.
These precedents underscore a non-negotiable principle: deviations undermine judicial legitimacy IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877.
Compounding the eligibility issue was the appellant's failure to disclose his Munsiff/Magistrate appointment during the application process for District Judge. This occurred after the application but before the final appointment, constituting material concealmentRejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 1089. The Court viewed this as fatal, invalidating the process and highlighting the need for full transparency.
As noted, the appellant’s concealment of material facts and the timing of his appointment as Munsiff/Magistrate after the application process was a critical factorRejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 1089. Such nondisclosure not only breaches trust but also contravenes the ethical standards expected in judicial recruitments.
The ruling in Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa (2025 INSC 965 : 2025 SCC Online SC 2196) has ripple effects beyond this case. It has been referenced in subsequent judgments on Higher Judicial Services (HJS) seniority and career progression All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1945. For instance:- Judicial officers' service can be reckoned for direct recruitment to HJS, but only if aligned with strict eligibility like continuous experience as advocates or officers on the date of applicationVISHWAJEET SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS vs HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1088.- In HJS seniority disputes, the decision enables service reckoning for judicial officers, promoting fast-track promotions while maintaining roster systems (e.g., 50:25:25 ratio for promotees, LDCE, and direct recruits) All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1945.
A recent framework mandates a 4-point annual roster: two for Recruitment from Bar (RPs), one for Limited Departmental Competitive Exam (LDCE), and one for Direct Recruits (DRs). This harmonizes seniority, ensuring career progression to higher echelons of Judiciary is neither a matter of right nor of entitlementAll India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1945. States must amend rules within three months to comply All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1945.
While rules may permit judicial officers under specific conditions, the Court clarified that fundamental eligibility criteria are non-negotiableIN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877. Appellants cannot rely on prior advocacy if shifted to service beforehand. Full disclosure remains mandatory; any misrepresentation typically leads to invalidation Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 1089.
To avoid similar pitfalls:- Verify status rigorously: Confirm practicing advocate standing or judicial office immediately prior to appointment SAURAV YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2020 7 Supreme 243.- Mandate disclosures: Require updates on status changes post-application Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 1089.- Adopt roster systems: Implement annual rosters for HJS to balance sources and mitigate delays All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1945.- Promote transparency: Train selection committees on precedents like Dheeraj Mor SAURAV YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2020 7 Supreme 243.
These steps ensure merit-based, credible appointments, safeguarding public trust.
Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa reinforces the judiciary's commitment to stringent eligibility under Article 233(2), prioritizing practicing advocates at appointment time and absolute candor IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877. It guides future recruitments, influencing HJS seniority and roster mechanisms for equitable progression All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1945.
Key Takeaways:- Eligibility is snapshot-based: practicing advocate immediately priorSAURAV YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2020 7 Supreme 243.- Judicial service post-application but pre-appointment disqualifies if undisclosed Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 1089.- Precedents demand strict compliance; exceptions are narrow IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877.- Impacts HJS: Service reckoning allowed, but within structured rosters VISHWAJEET SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS vs HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1088.
This analysis provides general insights based on public judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific circumstances.
References:- IN RE: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues VS . - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1877, SAURAV YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2020 7 Supreme 243, Rejanish K. V. VS K. Deepa - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 1089, All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1945, VISHWAJEET SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS vs HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1088, REJANISH K.V vs K. DEEPA
#JudicialAppointments #Article233 #SupremeCourtIndia
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. vs. K. Deepa & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196 held as follows: “171. ... However, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. (supra), there remains no doubt that the petitioner is entitled to be retained in the Service of Grade-I Judicial Officer in the State of Mizoram. ... However, as noted above, during the pendency of this writ petition, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. (supra) was delivered from where....
DEEPA & ORS. ... NO.2 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020 REJANISH
From among the list of candidates of Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas, Sri.Rejanish was ranked at Sl.No.2 and the writ petitioner Smt.K.Deepa was ranked at Sl.No.4. Rank No.1 was working as Munsiff Magistrate even at the time of submission of the application. ... Smt.K.Deepa filed the writ petition contending that Sri.K.V.Rejanish who was arrayed as the 3rd respondent was not eligible to be appointed as District Judge since at the relevant time when he was appointed as a District Judge, he was not a practising Advocate and ....
Law has been laid down by a five-judge Constitution Bench the Supreme Court Rejanish K.V. (supra). ... Johal has also invited attention of this Court to the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal no.3947 of 2020 titled as Rejanish K. V. v. K. ... Deepa and others, 2025 INSC 965 : 2025 SCC Online SC 2196, in which it has been held that only such persons working either as an advocate or pleader including government pleaders and public prosecutors or as judicial officers who, on the date of application, have a continuous exp....
From among the list of candidates of Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas, Sri.Rejanish was ranked at Sl.No.2 and the writ petitioner Smt.K.Deepa was ranked at Sl.No.4. Rank No.1 was working as Munsiff Magistrate even at the time of submission of the application. ... Smt.K.Deepa filed the writ petition contending that Sri.K.V.Rejanish who was arrayed as the 3rd respondent was not eligible to be appointed as District Judge since at the relevant time when he was appointed as a District Judge, he was not a practising Advocate and ....
The learned counsel also brought to our notice of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rejanish v. Deepa [2020 KHC 5612] as also of a learned Single Judge in Deepa v. State of Kerala [ILR 2020 (3) Ker. 437]. ... In view of the fact that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rejanish v. ... Deepa [2020 KHC 5612] is pending in appeal before the Apex Court and the same and allied questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal as well, we are of the opinion that such a cer....
BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.REJANISH appearing on behalf of the p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre
I have heard Sri.K.V.Rejanish, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.George BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.REJANISH span style="font-family
Reliance was placed in this regard on the decision in Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196; iii. ... They pointed out their service in the judicial service in the Senior Division and the Junior Division, which, according to them, has been recognised by this Court in Rejanish K.V.1 as being far superior to experience at the Bar. ... As of date, the decision of this Court in Rejanish K.V1 has further enabled the service of judicial officers to be reckoned for the purpose of direct recruitment to the HJS throug....
SRI.K.V.REJANISH SRI.A.S.DHEERAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATGE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SHO, EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
(viii) Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 (x) Rami Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani, 2020 (18) SCC 247 (ix) K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, 2013 (5) SCC 226 (xi) Joydeep Majmudar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majmudar, 2021 (3) SCC 742
43. In K.Srinivas Rao v. D.A.Deepa, (2013) 2 SCALE 735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. "We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down.
"We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 50. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 2 SCALE 735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
(b) Malathi Ravi, M.D. v B.V. Ravi, M.D. [(2014) 7 SCC 640]. In support of submissions learned Counsel has placed reliance on: (a) K. Srinivas Rao v D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226].
Mental cruelty and its effect cannot be stated with arithmetical exactitude. Some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with cases of mental cruelty, though only illustrative and not exhaustive, are (1) acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make it possible for the parties to live with each other; (2) the situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other; (3) the feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other for a long....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
