District Judge Selection – 35 Years Minimum Age Limit Prescribed By High Courts Not Against Article 233 of Constitution
Case: High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma
Coram: Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, A. S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2022
Court Observation: “The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Court to regulate the conditions of service for appointment. The Constitution being silent in regard to the prescription of minimum age, the High Courts in exercise of the rule making authority are entitled to prescribe such a requirement”
“It must be remembered that direct recruitment to the higher judicial services is intended to be from members of the bar who have sufficient experience. In fact, that is the reason why the Constitution stipulated at least seven years of practice as an advocate or a pleader. The High Court would be well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judicial services. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to subserve this”
“In terms of the rules of several High Courts, it is provided that for recruitment to the higher judicial services, the candidate should be of a minimum age of 35 with the maximum age limit of 45 years. For instance, the rules pertaining to the UP higher judicial services were noticed in the decision of a two judge bench of this court in Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad . The prescription of a rule providing for a minimum age requirement or a maximum age for entry into service is essentially a matter of policy. After noticing the earlier presidents on the subject, this court in Hirandra Kumar observed that essentially, the determination of the same lies in the realm of policy”.
“The submissions of the petitioners to the effect that the prescription of a minimum age would be contrary to the constitutional provisions contained in article 233 cannot be accepted. Article 233 of the Constitution (2) stipulates that any person not already in the service of the Union or the State shall only be eligible to be appointed as a district judge if he has not for less than seven years been an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment. Article 233(1) stipulates that Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any state shall be made by the Governor of the state in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such state. Article 235 entrusts to the High Court the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a state and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge.”
“The Constitution has prescribed the requirement to the effect that a person shall be eligible for appointment as the district judge subject to only if he has been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years. The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Court to regulate the conditions of service for appointment. The Constitution being silent in regard to the prescription of minimum age, the High Courts in exercise of the rule making authority are entitled to prescribe such a requirement. It must be remembered that direct recruitment to the higher judicial services is intended to be from members of the bar who have sufficient experience. In fact, that is the reason why the Constitution stipulated at least seven years of practice as an advocate or a pleader. The High Court would be well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judicial services. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to subserve this.”
“In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is absolutely no merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of some of the petitioners before the High Court who have not fulfilled the age requirement of 35 years. Though for about a short period of a year the High Court had deleted the requirement of a minimum age of 35 years for entry into the higher judicial services, the High Court has set right the rule so as to bring it into conformity with the recommendations of the Shetty commission. We do not find any merit in the challenge which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners to that extent”
Previous Posts
Private Doctors Submitting Sketchy Medical Reports To Courts Are Guilty Of Fabricating False Evidence Download Judgement
Keywords
District Judge Selection, Minimum age of District Judge Selection
