Brief Background
In Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196 the Supreme Court decided a constitutional question regarding the eligibility of judicial officers for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, was tasked with determining whether judicial officers who had previously practiced as advocates could be considered eligible for direct recruitment under Article 233(2), and whether the eligibility must be assessed at the time of application, appointment, or both.

Legal Issue
The issue revolved around the interpretation of Article 233(2), which states that “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.”

Legal Position Prior to this Judgment
In Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401, a three-judge bench had interpreted Article 233. It held that for direct recruitment as District Judge under the advocate quota, the candidate must be a practising advocate, actively engaged in legal practice on both the cut-off date and the date of appointment. They must not be in judicial or other services of the union or state at the time of appointment.

It further held that only actual practice as an advocate counts toward the mandatory seven years’ experience. Judicial service cannot be included or combined. The candidate must have been in continuous practice for the preceding seven years and remain in practice as an advocate on the date of appointment. It was further held that an in-service candidate can be appointed as a District Judge only through promotion.

Submissions by the Parties
The Petitioners argued that the phrase “has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader” should be interpreted to include past practice, and that the clause “not already in the service” should not be read as a disqualification in a negative context but as a separate stream of eligibility. It was submitted that Article 233 provides two distinct streams of recruitment: one for in-service judicial officers under clause (1), and another for advocates under clause (2). It was further argued that accepting the interpretation as laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401 would render the phrase “a person not already in the service of the Union or the State” redundant.

On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the interpretation of Article 233 has remained consistent for over decades and should not be disturbed. They emphasized the doctrine of stare decisis, asserting that the settled understanding of Article 233(2) as applying only to practicing advocates should be maintained. The Respondents further argued that once a person enters judicial service, they cease to be an advocate and cannot claim eligibility under the Bar quota. Furthermore, it was contended that the provision applies exclusively to individuals not serving in the judicial services of the Union or the State. It does not prescribe any eligibility criteria for the appointment of in-service candidates.

Court’s Decision
The Bench undertook a detailed analysis of Article 233. It noted that clause (1) governs appointments, postings, and promotions of District Judges by the Governor in consultation with the High Court, while clause (2) prescribes eligibility for those not already in service. The Court emphasized that the Constitution does not restrict judicial officers from being appointed as District Judges through direct recruitment, nor does it prescribe any minimum period of service for such appointments. It held that the plain meaning of Article 233(2) enables a judicial officer to be appointed as a District Judge provided they meet the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, it held that if clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution is read otherwise, then the words “a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State” will be rendered redundant.

The Court revisited Rameshwar Dayal v. The State of Punjab and Ors 1960 SCC OnLine SC 123, where it was held that Article 233 is a self-contained provision and that judicial officers could be appointed without additional qualifications. It observed that the phrase “has been” in Article 233(2) should not be narrowly interpreted to require continuous practice up to the date of application or appointment. Instead, it should be understood as referring to a completed period of seven years’ practice at any point prior to appointment. Furthermore, the Court rejected the interpretation that required advocates to be in active practice on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment, finding it unduly restrictive and contrary to the constitutional scheme.

The Bench also addressed the argument that allowing judicial officers to compete for direct recruitment would dilute the quality of appointments. It held that judicial officers bring valuable experience and institutional knowledge, and their inclusion in the Bar quota would enhance the quality of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that excluding them solely on the basis of their current service status is arbitrary and violates the equality clause under Article 14. The judgment in Dheeraj Mor, which held that in-service candidates cannot seek direct recruitment as District Judges, was overruled. The present judgment will apply prospectively and will not affect recruitment processes already completed or appointments already made.

Conclusion
In its conclusion, the Bench held that judicial officers who have completed seven years of practice as advocates prior to joining service are eligible for appointment as District Judges through direct recruitment under Article 233(2). It clarified that the eligibility must be assessed based on the totality of experience, and that prior advocacy practice satisfies the requirement even if the candidate is no longer in active practice. Eligibility is assessed at the time of application. Further, to ensure fairness, in-service candidates must have a combined seven years’ experience as advocate and judge, and all candidates must be at least 35 years old. The Court directed that recruitment rules be amended to reflect this interpretation and ensure that judicial officers are not excluded from the Bar quota.

By - C.George Thomas and Gurkaranbir Singh