Summary
In this January 2018 reference order, the Supreme Court placed district-judge direct-recruitment eligibility questions before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench. The issues included whether eligibility under Article 233 was assessed at application, appointment or both, and whether earlier advocacy or judicial service could satisfy the seven-year requirement. The Court noted apparently diverse precedent and did not finally resolve those questions. Early listing was requested because candidates had participated under interim orders and other appointments were reportedly held up.
Issues
- At what stage Article 233 direct-recruitment eligibility must exist and whether advocacy and judicial-service periods may be counted.
Held
- The petitioners advanced distinct claims based on seven years’ earlier advocacy despite current service, and on judicial service alone or combined with advocacy. The Court surveyed the cited decisions rather than accepting those claims as settled entitlements. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- A central unresolved question was whether eligibility had to be examined at application, appointment or both. Rules in some States counting judicial office toward seven years also required consideration. Apparently diverse observations made authoritative consideration by an appropriate Bench necessary. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The order referred the matters to the Chief Justice for constitution of the appropriate Bench without deciding eligibility or directing appointments. Because examinations and some interviews had occurred under interim orders and other candidates’ appointments were said to be held up, the Registry was to seek early posting. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Matters directed to the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench and consideration of early listing. Article 233 eligibility questions remained undecided in this reference order.