Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Judicial Service Trainees Not Eligible as Practising Advocates for Direct Recruitment As District Judge: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified the eligibility criteria for the appointment of District and Sessions Judges from the Bar, emphasizing the distinction between judicial service trainees and practising advocates. The bench, comprising Honorable Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Honorable Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, delivered a judgment dismissing the appeal of a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee who sought to be considered as a practising advocate for the direct recruitment process.

The case revolved around an appellant, previously a practising lawyer and later appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee, who challenged her exclusion from the viva-voce for the appointment as District and Sessions Judge. The court’s decision was based on a critical interpretation of the term “practising advocate” as mentioned in Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.

The court observed, “The right to participate in a selection is guaranteed only if the candidate fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria on the stipulated date.” This statement underlines the court’s position that continuous legal practice is essential for eligibility in direct recruitment from the Bar.

Further, the court referenced several past judgments, including the notable decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, to reinforce their conclusion. The bench clarified that undergoing pre-induction training as a Munsiff-Magistrate disqualifies an individual from being considered as a practising advocate for direct recruitment to the judicial post.

This ruling has significant implications for legal professionals aspiring to transition from advocacy to the judiciary, setting a clear precedent for future cases. The court, recognizing the broader impact of this decision, granted a certificate for an appeal to the Supreme Court, indicating the importance and potential nationwide influence of this judgment.

Date of Decision: 7th November 2023

SMT.LILLY KRISHNAN VS STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Kerl-07-Nov-23-Lilly-Krishna-Vs-State-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News