Direct recruitment as District judges not just for Advocates under Article 233; must include judicial officers, Supreme Court told

The Supreme Court was told today that Article 233 of the Constitution of India, laying down qualifications for appointment to the post of District Judge, covers both modes to that post, namely direct recruitment and promotion.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told a five-judge bench led by CJI Gavai, if the qualification were confined only to seven years as an advocate, it would imply that civil judges could never be promoted to District Judgeships, which cannot be correct.

"If only advocates with seven years’ practice are eligible, then even civil judges could never be promoted to District Judgeships. That interpretation would nullify the scheme of the Article and exclude an entire class of judicial officers.", Sankaranarayanan told the bench today.

On Article 233(2), the court has been told that the provision must be construed harmoniously and the words “has been for not less than seven years an advocate or pleader” cannot be read to exclude those already in service.

Sankaranarayanan appeared for civil judges who were not permitted to sit for the direct recruitment examination for District Judges.

Yesterday, Justice MM Sundresh drew comparison between the work done by a lawyer and a judge. In doing so, Justice Sundresh said, "One year of judgeship is equal to five years of being a lawyer. That is the volume of work".

This remark was made by Justice Sundresh during hearing of the case concerning the appointment of judicial officer who has completed seven years in practice at the Bar as an Additional District Judge against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment from the Bar.

The Supreme Court on September 23, 2025 began hearing the case with Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan opening the arguments representing a group of civil judges who were denied participation in direct recruitment examinations, two of them who were rank one holders in respective years of entrance exams. He added that several judicial officers, despite completing seven years of practice as advocates before joining the subordinate judiciary, were barred from applying under the Bar quota.

On interpretation of Article 233, court was told by Bhushan that any construction of a statute which makes the provision redundant cannot be accepted.

In August, a bench led by Chief Justice of India had referred to a five judge Constitution Bench the question of whether a judicial officer who has completed seven years in practice at the Bar prior to joining the subordinate judicial service can be considered eligible for appointment as an Additional District Judge against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment from the Bar.

On September 12, the bench comprising CJI BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and Vinod K Chandran had appointed nodal counsels for both sides and posted the matter for hearing on 23rd of September. The Supreme Court's decision on this issue could have a significant impact on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution and on recruitment policies for higher judicial service across the country.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria on August 11 had framed a second related question for the Constitution Bench. The court will also decide whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be assessed at the time of appointment, at the time of application, or at both stages. This clarification will address a long standing ambiguity in the recruitment process and determine how service history interacts with constitutional eligibility criteria.

The court had then directed its registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side to secure appropriate orders for the constitution of the Bench. The order was passed while hearing a batch of petitions which, in substance, sought review of the February 19, 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor vs Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In that case, a three judge bench had held that members of the judicial service of a State could be appointed as District Judges either through promotion or via the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.

In Dheeraj Mor, the Supreme Court had also held that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, an advocate or pleader with not less than seven years’ practice could be appointed as a District Judge through direct recruitment only if the candidate was not already in the judicial service of the Union or a State. Based on this interpretation, the court upheld the validity of High Court rules that barred judicial officers from competing for direct recruitment posts meant for the Bar.

The current petitions, which include both writ petitions and review petitions, seek a declaration that judicial officers who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the judicial service should be entitled to apply for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge under Article 233(2).

The petitioners argue that the prior Bar experience should not be disregarded simply because the candidate later joined the judicial service. Counsel for different parties advanced competing arguments. Some submitted that the interpretation of Article 233(2) raised in the petitions involves substantial questions of constitutional law that must be considered by a Constitution Bench. They pointed out that Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates that any case involving such substantial questions must be heard by a Bench of at least five judges. Others contended that no such reference was necessary and that the 2020 judgment had settled the matter.

After hearing all counsel, the Bench observed that Article 145(3) specifically provides that the minimum number of judges for deciding a case involving a substantial question of constitutional interpretation shall be five. The court also noted that in 2018, it had directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India in light of the constitutional issues involved, but the Dheeraj Mor case was nevertheless decided by a three judge bench. The court stated that ordinarily, given that the interpretation of Article 233(2) was squarely in issue, the matter should have been heard by a Constitution Bench.

The fact that it was decided by a smaller bench was unusual. In the present circumstances, the court was of the considered view that the issues now raised should be decided by a Bench of not less than five judges to ensure authoritative clarity. The decision to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench means that the Supreme Court will revisit the scope and meaning of Article 233(2). This provision governs the appointment of District Judges and seeks to balance opportunities between members of the Bar and those in the judicial service.

The outcome will determine whether prior experience at the Bar continues to count for eligibility once an individual has entered judicial service, and whether the critical date for assessing eligibility is the application date, the appointment date, or both.

Case Title: Rejanish K V vs. K Deepa And Others

Hearing Date: September 24, 2025

Bench: CJI Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and Vinod K Chandran