Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS): Pursuing LLM does not count as break in practice for advocates

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea that challenged the appointment of a candidate to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS). In doing so, the court also held that pursuing a master's in law does not count as a suspension or break in practice of an advocate. The decision was made by a division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan on April 10.

The petitioner in the case was a DHJS candidate who had appeared for the exam but did not make it to the list of selected candidates. The candidate was placed in the 35th position, while the list was restricted to 32 candidates. The petitioner challenged the inclusion of three people in the selected list of candidates on various grounds.

One of the candidates whose selection was challenged began their practice in 2008. The petitioner argued that this candidate failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria set out in Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules, which requires a candidate to "have been continuously practicing as an advocate for not less than seven years as on the last date of receipt of the application." The challenge was based on the fact that this candidate pursued a full-time Master of Law Program at the University College London (UCL) from September 2015 to June 2016.

The high court examined a 2009 resolution of the Bar Council of India that allows practicing advocates to join an LLM course "as a regular student without suspending the practice." The court held that the eligibility criterion of being in practice for seven years, as given by the DHJS rules, does not require any inquiry into the actual area of practice of an advocate. The court also observed that if a person is enrolled as an advocate for a period of seven years prior to the date of the application, he or she would satisfy the eligibility criteria unless it is established that the person was not entitled to be enrolled as an advocate, had suspended their practice voluntarily or otherwise, or had accepted an engagement or vocation that was impermissible as an advocate.

The court further examined Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which states that any person who has been an advocate for not less than seven years is eligible to be appointed as a district judge. The court observed that there is "no material difference between the eligibility criteria" prescribed in DHJS rules and Article 233(2).

The high court rejected the contention that the DHJS Rules contemplate the condition of active practice as an advocate in addition to the eligibility criteria stipulated under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. The court took the view that DHJS rules on this point had to be read as "embodying the eligibility criteria for the appointment of an advocate as set out in Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India."

Finally, the court rejected the argument that the requirement of seven years standing at the bar is materially different from the phrase "must have practiced as an advocate" as contained in the DHJS Rules. The court said, "The criteria that a candidate who has practiced for not less than seven years is not different from the requirement of not less than seven years standing at the bar."

Case: Karan Antil v High Court of Delhi & Ors.

Counsel for Applicant: Advs. Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate.

Counsel for Opposite Party: Advs.  Dr. Amit George, Mr. Piyo Harold Jainmon, Mr. Amil Acharya, and others

Order Date: 10.04.2023 

Read Order: Download PDF