Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Monday, 21 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2017-04-03 disposed

Sukhda Pritam and Anr vs Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and Anr

Bench: 2 — <UNKNOWN>, <UNKNOWN>

In Brief

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to participate in the 2015 Rajasthan Judicial Service Direct Recruitment Examination for District Judges, challenging Rules 31(3) and 33(iii) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 as violative of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that while Article 233 requires seven years as an advocate or pleader, compelling acceptance into the selection process through mandamus would be inconsistent with the constitutional appointment scheme vesting authority in the Governor and High Court. The Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for policy-level resolution to prevent similar litigation across States regarding Higher Judicial Service appointments."

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Judicial Appointments Writ Petition Higher Judicial Service Service Rules

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login