REJANISH K.V v. K. DEEPA
Supreme Court of India
2025 INSC 1208
Discusses constitutional interpretation, judicial appointments, and the doctrine of stare decisis.
Legal Discussion:
- Constitution of India: The judgment extensively discusses Article 233, focusing on the appointment of district judges. It analyzes clause (1), which deals with the Governor's power to appoint, post, and promote district judges in consultation with the High Court. Clause (2), concerning eligibility, is scrutinized, particularly the requirement of seven years' practice as an advocate or pleader for those not already in service. The judgment interprets the phrase "a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State" in Article 233(2), debating whether it excludes judicial officers from direct recruitment. It also examines Article 233-A, validating certain appointments, and its implications for interpreting Article 233. Article 50, concerning the separation of the judiciary from the executive, is discussed in relation to judicial independence. The judgment also refers to Article 234 (recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service), Article 235 (control over subordinate courts), Article 236 (interpretation of "district judge" and "judicial service"), and Article 237 (application of the Chapter to certain magistrates). The judgment also refers to Explanation (aa) of Article 217(2) of the Constitution. The judgment concludes that the judgments from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor do not correctly interpret Article 233 and holds that in-service candidates with seven years combined experience as judicial officer and advocate are eligible for direct recruitment.
- Bar Councils Act, 1926: The judgment refers to Section 8(2)(a) of the Bar Councils Act, 1926 in the context of interpreting whether certain respondents in Rameshwar Dayal (supra) ceased to be advocates.
- Advocates Act, 1961: The judgment refers to the provisions under the Advocates Act, 1961 and observed that for the purpose of the Advocates Act and the rules framed thereunder, the Law Officer (Public Prosecutor or Government Counsel) will continue to be an advocate. The judgment also refers to Sections 29, 30 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 together with Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
- U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules: The judgment refers to Rule 14 of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, which deals with direct recruitment. It notes that the Constitution Bench in Chandra Mohan held that the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules providing for the recruitment of district judges are constitutionally void and therefore the appointments made thereunder were illegal.
- High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947: The judgment refers to Clause 6 of the High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 in the context of interpreting whether certain respondents in Rameshwar Dayal (supra) ceased to be advocates.
- Bar Council of India Rules: The judgment discusses Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, particularly concerning the conditions under which an advocate can be a full-time salaried employee. It notes the amendments to the rule and their implications for law officers. The judgment also refers to the Bar Council of India Rules “Part VI – Rules Governing Advocates” came to be amended by the Bar Council of India by incorporating Chapter III “Conditions for Right to Practice” in 2010. In the said newly added Chapter III, Rule 5 deals with voluntarily suspension of practice as well as resumption of practice.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the doctrine of stare decisis, noting that it is not an inflexible rule and that the Court may review earlier decisions if there is an error or if the decision harms the public interest. It also discusses the principles of textual and contextual interpretation, emphasizing the importance of understanding the reason and purpose of a statute. The judgment also discusses the principle of constitutional silence.
- Interpretation of Statutes: The judgment discusses the principles of plain and literal interpretation. It emphasizes that interpretation must depend on the text and the context and that a statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. It also states that a statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word.
List of Laws: Constitution of India; Bar Councils Act, 1926; Advocates Act, 1961; U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules; High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947; Bar Council of India Rules; General Principles of Law; Interpretation of Statutes