SC allows judicial officers with 7 years experience as advocates to apply for district judges

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the judicial officers who have already completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the service would be eligible for appointment as district judges.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai directed the state governments to frame rules specifying eligibility for in-service candidates, while also allowing those with a combined seven years of experience as judicial officers and advocates to qualify for direct recruitment to the post of district judges. 

The court also clarified that the eligibility would be assessed at the time of selection. 

"To maintain a level playing field, the minimum age for applying as a district judge or additional district judge will be 35 years on the date of application," the bench said, pronouncing its judgment.

The court rejected the claim that Article 233(2) reserved a 25% quota for direct recruits. 

The court held members of the judicial service had faced injustice. The bench clarified its ruling will apply from the date of the judgment, except in cases where the High Court has passed interim orders.

The bench emphasised that statutory interpretation must align contextually, not in isolation.

"A holistic reading of Article 233 of the Constitution shows that while clause 2 specifies qualifications for in-service candidates, it does not detail qualifications for others. The entire article must be read together to understand the intent of its first part. The interpretation must be flexible and purposive, not rigid, any reading that unduly limits competition will be rejected," the bench said.

The court's judgment came on a reference made on August 12, 2025 to the question if judicial officers selected in subordinate judicial services after seven years practice as advocate can also apply for direct recruitment to the post of district judges only open for the experienced Bar members.

The bench also comprised of Justices M M Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran.

A batch of petitions were filed seeking reconsideration of February 19, 2020 judgment in the case of Dheeraj Mor vs Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (2020).

A three judges bench had then held that the members of the judicial service of a State could be appointed as district judges either by way of promotion or the limited departmental competitive examination. The court had then ruled that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, an advocate or pleader with seven years of practice could be appointed as district judge by way of direct recruitment, in case he is not already in the judicial service of the Union or a State. 

The court had then also declared that the rules framed by the High Court debarring judicial officers from staking their claim as against the posts reserved for direct recruitment from Bar would not be ultra vires to the Constitution.   

The plea filed by Rejanish K V and others contended even those judicial officers who have an experience of seven years at the Bar prior to their joining as judicial officers would be entitled to be appointed as district judges via direct recruitment.