In Brief
The Supreme Court examined whether issues involving the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution—which governs the appointment of district judges—must be heard by a Constitution Bench of five judges. The Court held that a prior three-judge decision on these matters was procedurally defective, as Article 145(3) mandates a minimum five-judge bench for cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court identified two key unresolved issues: whether judicial officers with seven years of prior Bar experience can claim direct recruitment as district judges, and whether eligibility must be assessed at application or appointment time. The matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench for proper consideration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.