Summary and Analysis of Rejanish K.v Vs. K. Deepa & Others

1. Heading of the Judgment

REJANISH K.V vs. K. DEEPA & OTHERS
(Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020; Decided on August 12, 2025)

Citation: REJANISH K.V vs. K. DEEPA & ORS., 2025 INSC ___ [Diary No. 18470/2021] (Supreme Court of India)

2. Relevant Constitutional Provisions

The judgment revolves around:

• Article 233(2) of the Constitution:
  Governs appointment of district judges.
  Requires candidates to:
  (a) Not be in Union/State service,
  (b) Have 7+ years as advocate/pleader,
  (c) Be recommended by the High Court.

• Article 145(3) of the Constitution:
  Mandates 5-judge Bench for cases involving "substantial questions of law" on constitutional interpretation.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Rejanish K.V.
  Respondents: K. Deepa & Others (includes judicial officers/states).

• Core Dispute:
  Whether judicial officers with prior bar experience can apply for district judge posts earmarked for "direct recruitment from the bar" under Article 233(2).

• Trigger:
  Challenge to the 2020 ruling in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi¹ (2020) 7 SCC 401 ("JUR case"), where a 3-judge Bench barred judicial officers from such posts.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Background

• JUR Case (2020):
  Held that judicial officers cannot apply for district judge posts reserved for "direct recruitment from bar" under Article 233(2).
  Reason: They are already in "State service," disqualifying them under Article 233(2)’s phrase: "not already in the service... of the State".

• Review Petitions:
  Argued that judicial officers with 7+ years at the bar before joining service should be eligible for these posts.

B. Key Arguments

• For Re-examination (Appellants):
  Earlier Constitution Bench rulings (Rameshwar Dayal, 1961 and Chandra Mohan, 1967) did not address this specific issue.
  Article 233(2) involves "substantial question of law," requiring a 5-judge Bench under Article 145(3).

• Against Re-examination (Respondents):
  JUR case correctly applied existing precedents; no fresh review needed.

C. Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Precedents Distinguished:
   Rameshwar Dayal (1961):
   Only addressed whether pre-Partition bar experience counted toward 7-year eligibility.
   Chandra Mohan (1967):
   Only clarified that non-judicial service members (e.g., police/revenue) cannot be appointed as district judges.
   Neither case decided if judicial officers with prior bar experience qualify under Article 233(2).

2. Article 145(3) Mandatory:
   Interpretation of Article 233(2) is a "substantial question of law" requiring a 5-judge Constitution Bench.
   The JUR case was erroneously decided by 3 judges despite this requirement.

D. Questions Referred to Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court framed two key issues for reconsideration:

"(i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years at the bar (before joining service) is entitled to appointment as Additional District Judge against posts reserved for 'direct recruitment from the bar'?
(ii) Whether eligibility under Article 233(2) is determined at the time of application or at the time of appointment?"

E. Outcome

• Reference Ordered:
  The case is referred to a 5-judge Constitution Bench.
  All connected petitions (review/writ) will be heard after the Constitution Bench rules.

• Rationale:
  *"Article 233(2) eligibility criteria engage a substantial question of constitutional interpretation. The JUR case’s 3-judge Bench lacked jurisdiction to decide it. Interests of justice demand reconsideration by a Constitution Bench."*
  (Paragraph 21, Judgment)