Judicial Officers With 7 Years’ Bar Experience Eligible for District Judge Posts: Supreme Court

Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice BR Gavai, heading the five-judge Bench, said Article 233 of the Constitution must be read as a whole and not in parts. The Court held that adopting the interpretation in Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan cases would render the first part of Article 233 meaningless.

“The State Government, in consultation with the High Courts, will have to frame rules for judicial officers applying for the post of District Judge,” the CJI said, adding that “an injustice has been meted out to judicial officers by depriving them of this opportunity.”

The Bench clarified that the judgment will apply prospectively and will not affect selections or applications made prior to the decision. The Court also fixed the minimum age for applying as District Judge or Additional Judge at 35 years, directing all State Governments to amend their service rules within three months.

Justice MM Sundresh, in a separate opinion, said that both qualifications under Article 233 are “gateways to judicial service” and that restricting eligibility only to practising advocates would violate Article 14. He emphasized that “excluding a group of persons from a post meant to serve the public will certainly be unconstitutional.”

Justice Sundresh also underlined that nurturing emerging judicial talent at an early stage is vital to maintaining “excellence over mediocrity” and ensuring the strength of the judicial structure.

Notably, on September 25, the Court after hearing the case for three days had reserved it for judgment.

The Apex Court had been told 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 submitted 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.

During one of the hearings, 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".

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 included 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).

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

Pronouncement Date: October 9, 2025

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