The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has clarified that the 25% quota earmarked for direct recruitment to the post of District Judges is not exclusively reserved for practising advocates.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma, and K Vinod Chandran observed:

“We do not accept the argument that the 25% direct recruitment quota is solely for advocates. Accepting this would effectively create a separate quota for advocates with seven years of practice. A literal interpretation of Article 233(2) does not support such a provision. Hence, this contention fails.”

The Court emphasized that a judicial officer with seven years of experience whether solely at the Bar or combined as a lawyer and judge is eligible for direct recruitment against the Bar quota.

During the proceedings, respondents cited the 2002 directions in All India Judges’ Association & Others v. Union of India & Others, which outlined a 75:25 ratio for District Judge appointments 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. They argued that this 25% was exclusively reserved for advocates.

The 2002 directions stated:

“While we agree with the Shetty Commission that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service from advocates should be 25% through competitive examination, there should be an objective method for assessing subordinate judicial officers for promotion. The 75:25 ratio is maintained, but promotions should be merit-cum-seniority based to encourage excellence among junior officers.”

The Constitution Bench, however, rejected the exclusivity claim, confirming that serving judicial officers with combined experience of over seven years can compete for direct recruitment posts.

The Court noted that creating an advocate-exclusive quota would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, overturning the decision in Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (1985) 1 SCC 225.

Case Reference: Rejanish K.V. vs. K. Deepa [Civil Appeal No. 3947/2020]