Supreme Court Opens Bar Quota for Judicial Officers

Rejanish K.V. vs K. Deepa and Others (2025)

Supreme Court Opens Bar Quota to Judicial Officers

Introduction

In Rejanish K.V. vs K. Deepa and Others (2025), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment redefining eligibility for recruitment to the post of District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution. The ruling allows judicial officers who have a combined experience of seven years — both as advocates and in judicial service — to apply for selection under the “Bar quota.”

1. What Does Article 233 Say?

Article 233 governs the appointment of District Judges and provides for two main sources of recruitment:

• Direct recruitment from among advocates or pleaders with not less than seven years of practice.
• Promotion from within the existing judicial service.

The Bench clarified that Article 233 is a complete code in itself and does not impose a rigid distinction between advocates and serving judges.

2. What Did the Court Decide?

The Bench, led by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, unanimously held that:

• Judicial officers who have practised as advocates for at least seven continuous years before joining service are eligible to apply under the Bar quota.
• The term “advocate” in Article 233(2) includes such officers, as they only suspend their right to practise while in service — they do not lose it permanently.
• Excluding them from eligibility would be discriminatory and against the spirit of judicial efficiency and fairness.

3. Impact on District Judiciary

This decision significantly broadens the talent pool for District Judge appointments. It allows capable young judges to compete alongside practising advocates, fostering healthy competition and merit-based selection. The judgment also echoes the Shetty Commission (1999) recommendations, aiming to enhance discipline, efficiency, and the overall quality of the judiciary.

High Courts can now objectively evaluate the comparative merit of both categories — advocates and serving judicial officers — during recruitment.

4. Conditions Clarified

The Supreme Court laid down clear conditions for eligibility under the Bar quota:

• The seven years’ experience must be continuous — breaks in practice cannot be added cumulatively.
• A minimum age of 35 years is required to ensure consistency across all states.
• Judicial officers with less than seven combined years of advocacy and service experience remain ineligible.

5. Example

For instance, if a candidate practised as an advocate for five years and later served as a judicial officer for two years, they meet the eligibility requirement. However, if there was a significant break — such as a 10-year gap — between advocacy and service, they would be deemed ineligible due to the discontinuity in legal engagement.