Junior officers can also become district judges

A case from Kerala has led to a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court. The historic judgment from the top court has opened the door for junior judicial officers in India to become district judges directly by writing an examination instead of through promotion. The 25 percent quota for direct appointment of district judges was only for lawyers with seven years of practice till now. This has been corrected. From now on, the opportunity to become district judges for lawyers with seven years of practice will also be available to those with seven years of combined experience in the legal profession and judicial service. Providing this opportunity only to lawyers would be a violation of the constitutional principle of equal opportunity. The five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai has ruled that judicial officers with a combined experience of seven years can also become district judges through direct recruitment, based on this.

The experience of a judicial officer in court is not inferior to the experience of a lawyer. Therefore, denying them this opportunity on the grounds of being appointed as a judicial officer would be unconstitutional, ruled the bench, which included Malayali judge K Vinod Chandran. However, it has been proposed that a judicial officer should have completed 35 years of age when applying for the post of district judge. The question of whether a junior officer who is appointed in this way should be promoted above those immediately above them was raised during the argument in the case. The constitution bench pointed out that such a question is trying to belittle merit and that the Supreme Court wants capable people to become district judges and dispose of cases quickly and efficiently.

It has been some time since the private sector changed from the method of determining seniority through promotion. However, this method, which was established long ago, continues in government services and courts. This judgment of the Supreme Court also points to the need for a change in this. An officer's track record and excellence should be considered for him to be given higher positions, rather than age and length of service. In modern times, many examination methods can be adopted to determine this. It is not unreasonable for such methods not to emerge in government services over time. IAS officers are relatively young. That does not mean that older people do not work under them. In modern times, excellence should come first, not age and experience.

KV Rajneesh, who has more than seven years of experience as a lawyer, was appointed as a Junior Judicial Officer and later qualified for the appointment of a District Judge after passing the examination. However, Deepa, the opposing party, approached the court, claiming that this person was not an advocate when he became a District Judge, and therefore the criterion of seven years of experience as a lawyer was not met, and that his appointment as a judicial officer under the quota for lawyers was illegal. The High Court ordered the cancellation of Rajneesh's appointment. It was on the appeal against this that the Supreme Court issued an important judgment that was in line with the spirit of the Constitution. It is hoped that this judgment, which paves the way for many talented junior judicial officers in India to enter the post of District Judge, will bring far-reaching benefits to the judiciary system.