Gauhati High Court upholds Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003

Lower & upper age limits in appointments to higher judiciary

STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003, particularly Rule 7, by which a minimum age of 35 years and a maximum age of 45 years have been stipulated as an essential criterion for appointment to the Higher Judicial Service in the State.

The High Court's judgment came in response to a Writ Petition (Civil) filed by one Pooja Agarwal, who contended that Article 233 of the Constitution of India prescribes the qualification for appointment of District Judges and there is no mention of a minimum age of 35 years as a qualification for appointment as a District Judge. Consequently, the petitioner submitted, the State cannot bring the age as a qualification in its Rules, as that would be against the Constitutional provision. She further argued that prescribing a minimum age for Higher Judicial Service is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

However, the High Court referred to a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in a similar case (High Court of Delhi versus Devina Sharma) and stated: "The Apex Court gave the reasons as to why a minimum age of 35 years has been prescribed. The underlying reason is to ensure that the senior-most level of post in the cadre is occupied by a person of sufficient maturity and experience."

The High Court quoted the observations made by the Supreme Court: "...The post of a District Judge is at a senior level in the cadre. Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confront challenges to liberty and justice. The High Courts are well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to sub-serve this."

Referring to the petitioner's submission regarding violation of Article 14, the High Court pointed out that the Constitution states that a law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts in the country.

"Undoubtedly, what is binding is the ratio laid down in the said case," the judgment stated.

Also Read:  Gauhati High Court on accommodation of Judicial Officers

Also Watch: