THE CONSTITUTIONAL BRIDGE: REAFFIRMING ELIGIBILITY FOR JUDICIAL SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

This article analyses the landmark Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on the scope of direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service.

The case, titled Rejanish K.V. VS. K. Deepa and Others [Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020], along with connected matters, was pronounced on October 09, 2025. The Constitution Bench that heard the matter comprised B.R. Gavai, CJI, and Justices Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma, and K. Vinod Chandran, with Justice M. M. Sundresh writing a concurring opinion. The ruling resolves a long-standing legal ambiguity regarding the eligibility of in-service judicial officers to compete for District Judge posts under the direct recruitment quota.

 

BRIEF FACTS

The batch of matters came before the Constitution Bench following a reference to address substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution.

The core dispute was whether a judicial officer already serving in the Subordinate Judiciary (such as a Civil Judge), who may have completed seven years of practice as an advocate prior to joining judicial service, could apply for the position of District Judge through direct recruitment against the quota reserved for the Bar.

The controversy arose largely due to the restrictive interpretation given in a previous Three-Judges Bench ruling, Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401. That Judgment held that a candidate for the Bar quota must be a presently practicing advocate on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment and crucially, must not be in judicial service. This interpretation effectively barred judicial officers, even those with significant prior experience at the Bar, from competing for direct recruitment vacancies. The Petitioners challenged this view, arguing it was unreasonable and detrimental to the judicial system by excluding experienced in-service candidates.

 

ISSUE OF LAW

The central legal issue for consideration was the correct and non-pedantic interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution of India, specifically:

• Whether a person already in the judicial service of the Union or State is eligible for appointment as District Judge through the direct recruitment channel.
• Whether the phrase “has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader” requires a candidate to be a practicing advocate at the time of application and appointment, or if past experience is sufficient.
• Whether experience as an advocate and as a Civil Judge can be combined to meet the seven-year eligibility requirement.

 

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court engaged in a detailed textual and contextual interpretation of Article 233, which governs the appointment of District Judges.

Re-interpreting Article 233(1) and (2)

The Court reaffirmed that Article 233 provides for two distinct sources of recruitment to the post of District Judge:

• Promotion or appointment from the service of the Union or of the State (interpreted as Judicial Service).
• Direct appointment of a person not already in service who “has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader”.

The Bench categorically rejected the restrictive reading of Article 233(2) established by subsequent decisions like Dheeraj Mor. It held that Clause (2) merely specifies the eligibility criteria for those not already in service (i.e., members of the Bar). The plain language of Article 233 does not place any restriction on judicial officers from participating in direct recruitment.

 

Rejection of Exclusionary Principle

The Court emphasized the concept of independence of the judiciary, which is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. To exclude a group of dedicated judicial officers from competing for a public post, when the Constitution itself permits such participation, was deemed unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that greater competition attracts the best talent and letting go of emerging talent would lead to mediocrity, weakening the judicial structure.

 

Allowance for Combined Experience

Addressing the practical application of the seven-year requirement, the Court determined that an in-service candidate must be eligible for direct recruitment if they possess a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and a judicial officer. This means that the experience gained in the subordinate judicial service must be factored in alongside the practice period at the Bar. The Court also observed that the phrase “has been” refers to a past state of affairs and does not necessarily imply a continuing state in the present.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court overruled the interpretation in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi and other inconsistent rulings.

The Court definitively held that there is no bar on in-service judicial officers, who meet the requisite qualification (including seven years of combined experience as an advocate/pleader and a judicial officer), from competing for vacancies designated for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge. The interpretation that only advocates can apply amounts to an unwarranted reservation not contemplated by the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside all State Rules governing District Judge appointments that are contrary to this Judgment. All State Governments, in consultation with their respective High Courts, were directed to amend/frame the rules to align with the constitutional mandate established in this decision within a period of three months. This Judgment strengthens the foundation of the judiciary by broadening the pool of eligible candidates, ensuring that excellence prevails through robust competition

 

ARTICLE 233

(1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.

⁠(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.

 

SUSHILA RAM VARMA

Chief Legal Consultant

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “Legal Requirements for Indian Startups| Complete Q & A 2025 | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCwYi1P-1xE&t=39s