The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that an advocate does not require continuous practice for seven years to be eligible for appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. This decision has significant implications for advocates seeking to transition to the judiciary.
The Case
The case involved a petition challenging the appointment of Respondent 4 as Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner argued that Respondent 4 was ineligible for the post due to breaks in his advocacy practice, including employment as a District Legal Aid Officer and a Civil Judge Class-II in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner contended that these interruptions rendered Respondent 4 ineligible under Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution, which requires an advocate to have at least seven years of practice to qualify for the position.
The Court’s Decision
However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court disagreed with the petitioner’s contention. The Court held that Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India does not require continuous practice for seven years as an Advocate; it merely stipulates that the candidate must have seven years of practice and be an Advocate on the date of the application and appointment.
The Court’s decision was delivered by Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya, who observed that the respondent had cumulatively more than seven years of active practice as an advocate, making him eligible for the appointment.
The Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner had argued that breaks in practice rendered the respondent ineligible under Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution, which requires an advocate to have at least seven years of practice to qualify for the position. The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi, asserting that continuous practice is essential.
The Respondent’s Argument
The respondent argued that his cumulative periods of active practice as an advocate, totalling more than seven years, met the eligibility requirements under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. He contended that his temporary roles as a District Legal Aid Officer and Civil Judge Class-II in Madhya Pradesh should not disqualify him, as he had resigned from those services and resumed his advocacy practice after each position.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court examined the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004, the cited precedents, and relevant Constitutional provisions. It was found that the respondent had periods of active practice from July 2012 to March 2015, from July 2015 to April 2016, and from May 2018 to November 2022. These periods cumulatively amounted to more than seven years.
The bench thus remarked, “Art.233(2) of the Constitution of India, on a plain reading, also does not support the view that the candidate must have “continuous” 7 years of practice as an Advocate, though he is required to have minimum 7 years of practice as Advocate and must be continuing as Advocate on date of making application for appointment and also on the date of his/her appointment.”
Disagreement with Delhi High Court’s Decision
The Court expressed its disagreement with a previous judgment by the Delhi High Court, which had required continuous seven years of practice for eligibility. The Delhi High Court’s decision was based on an interpretation of Article 233(2) that necessitated uninterrupted practice as an advocate. However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court opined that this interpretation was inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings.
The judges noted, “We do not agree with the view of the Delhi High Court’s understanding of the said two decisions that they insist that there ought to be continuous 7 years practice for being eligible to be appointed as an Additional District Judge, as is being contended by counsel for petitioner.”
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision has clarified the eligibility criteria for advocates seeking to become Additional District and Sessions Judges. The ruling is significant as it provides more opportunities for advocates to join the judiciary, and its disagreement with the Delhi High Court’s decision highlights the importance of a nuanced understanding of Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution.
FAQ’s
Q: Is continuous practice of 7 years required for an advocate to be eligible for Additional District and Sessions Judge appointment? A1: No, according to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, continuous practice of 7 years is not required.
Q: What is the eligibility criteria for an advocate to become an Additional District and Sessions Judge? A2: An advocate must have a minimum of 7 years of practice and be an advocate on the date of application and appointment.
Q: Can breaks in advocacy practice disqualify an advocate from becoming an Additional District and Sessions Judge? A3: No, breaks in practice do not disqualify an advocate, as long as they have cumulatively more than 7 years of active practice.
Q: Is the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in line with previous judgments on this issue? A4: The Court’s decision disagrees with a previous judgment by the Delhi High Court, which required continuous 7 years of practice for eligibility.
Q: What is the significance of this decision for advocates? A5: This decision provides more opportunities for advocates to join the judiciary, as they do not need to have continuous practice to be eligible for the position.
