Supreme Court: Judicial Officer Having Combined Experience Of 7 Years As Advocate Or Judicial Officer Eligible To Be Appointed as District Judge Or Additional District Judge

The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench held that a person who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an Advocate or a Judicial Officer is eligible to appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution.

The Court was deciding a batch of matters referred vide Order dated August 12, 2025 for consideration by a three-Judge Bench.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held as follows –

(i) “Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process;

(ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application;

(iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, we direct that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate;

(iv) A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution;

(v) In order to ensure level playing field, we further direct that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application.

(vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh (supra) till Dheeraj Mor (supra), which take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not lay down the correct proposition of law.”

Senior Advocates Jayant Bhushan, Arvind P. Datar, P.S. Patwalia, V. Giri, Vibha Datta Makhija, Jaideep Gupta, Manish Singhvi, Dama Seshadri Naidu, George Poonthottam, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy, Rajive Bhalla, Anil Kaushik, Amit Anand Tewari, B.H. Marlapalle, Narendra Hooda, and Anand Sanjay M. Nuli appeared on behalf of the Petitioners, while Senior Advocates C.U. Singh, Nidhesh Gupta, Vijay Hansaria, Ravindra Shrivastava, Rajiv Shakdher, AORs Amit Gupta, Kanhaiya Singhal, Rashid N. Azam, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Sindoora VNL, Advocates Yashvardhan, Kavya Jhawar, and Nandini Rai appeared on behalf of the Respondents. Advocates Siddharth Gupta and Satyam Chand Soriya appeared on behalf of the Intervenors, while Advocates Ajay Kumar Singh and John Mathew assisted the Court as Nodal Counsel for Parties.

Brief Background

On August 12, 2025, the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had referred the following substantial questions of law for consideration of a Constitution Bench –

(i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy?

(ii) Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both?

When the batch of matters was listed for directions on September 12, 2025, the following additional questions were also framed by the Constitution Bench –

(iii) Whether there is any eligibility prescribed for a person already in the judicial service of the Union or State under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being appointed as District Judge?

(iv) Whether a person who has been Civil Judge for a period of seven years or has been an Advocate and Civil Judge for a combined period of seven years or more than seven years would be eligible for appointment as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution of India?

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the above questions of law, remarked, “We, therefore, see no reason to deny an opportunity to such young talented judicial officers to compete with the advocates/pleaders having seven years’ practice in the matter of direct recruitment to the post of district judge.”

The Court observed that the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service should be to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job.

“As observed by this Court in a catena of cases, the interpretation of the constitutional provisions cannot be pedantic. It has to be organic. A purposeful interpretation has to be adopted. If the appointment to the district judges cadre is to be made directly for the purpose of enhancing the efficiency of district judiciary, any interpretation which restricts the competition and prohibits the otherwise meritorious candidates from zone of consideration will have to be eschewed. The interpretation which advances the purpose of bringing in efficiency in the district judiciary and permitting a broad-based competition amongst all the eligible candidates will have to be accepted”, it said.

The Court directed the State Governments for framing rules in consultation with the respective High Courts providing the eligibility for candidates who are already in judicial service to apply for the post of district judge to be filled through direct recruitment process.

“… we are of the considered view that for bringing the advocates and the in-service candidates at the same level, it will be appropriate that the rules provide that an in-service candidate should be eligible for recruitment to the post of district judge directly only if he has a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and a judicial officer”, it added.

The Court was of the view that if an Advocate is participating in the selection process and he was a member of judicial service in the past, then his experience as a judicial officer also cannot be ignored.

“His experience as an advocate prior to joining judicial service, his experience as a judicial officer and his experience as an advocate after leaving the judicial service will all have to be taken together. Such a candidate will be eligible only if he has a combined experience as an advocate and as a judicial officer for seven years”, it added.

The Court further observed that in order to make available a level playing field for all the candidates, whether from in-service or advocates/pleaders, the minimum age as on the date of application should be 35 years as recommended by the Shetty Commission.

“If a person is meritorious and on account of merit and merit alone gets selected directly as a district judge, there can be no question of heartburn for those who are not as meritorious as persons selected. … Insofar as the contention that if the in-service candidates are permitted to participate in the recruitment process as direct recruit, then the advocates/pleaders would not be in a position to get selected is concerned, the same is also without any merit”, it held.

The Court also remarked that it sees no reason to import such an artificial restriction in the appointment of district judges by way of direct recruitment.

“We are, therefore, inclined to hold that only such persons working either as an advocate/pleader including Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors or as a judicial officer who, on the date of application, have a continuous experience of either an advocate/pleader or a judicial officer or a combination thereof shall only be eligible to be considered for appointment as district judges through the stream of direct recruitment”, it held.

Quota for Advocates under Article 233(2)

The Court refused to accept the contention on behalf of the Respondents that 25% quota of direct recruitment is reserved only for practising Advocates, as it will amount to providing a “quota” for the Advocates having seven years’ practice.

Conclusion

The Court, therefore, set aside all such rules framed by the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts which are not in accordance with the answers to the reference.

“The Registry is directed to obtain the necessary orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative side, to place the matters part of the present batch before an appropriate bench for deciding the same in the light of what has been held hereinabove”, it directed.

Justice Sundresh’s Concurrent Opinion

Justice M.M. Sundresh while agreeing with the reasoning, said, “While interpreting a constitutional provision, a Court of law must be conscious not to violate the basic structure of the Constitution, and is duty-bound to give it a vibrant and organic interpretation.”

He observed that an absolute bar on persons in the judicial service would certainly prevent meritorious candidates from competing for the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, which would be an affront to the constitutional spirit.

“A vibrant and qualitative judiciary fosters greater trust in the institution. Thus, it is vital to build a strong foundation. Maintaining and enhancing the quality at the bottom of the judicial pyramid would strengthen the faith of the public in the subordinate judiciary, which in turn would reduce the filing of appeals before the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and therefore considerably reduce the overall pendency”, he noted.

He concluded that building a strong foundation and ensuring that the base is of pristine quality is only possible when the best talent is attracted and letting go of emerging talent, by not identifying and nurturing them at the earliest, would lead to mediocrity as against excellence, which would weaken the foundation and undermine the entire judicial structure.

Accordingly, the Apex Court answered the reference and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1208)

Click here to read/download the Judgment