District Judge Direct Appointment

Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

In a landmark constitutional verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has fundamentally transformed the recruitment landscape for district judges in India. In a major ruling delivered by Bench decided that judicial officers already working in lower courts can now compete for district judge positions through direct recruitment. Until now, this route was open only to practicing lawyers. However, the Court maintained that candidates must demonstrate continuous seven-year experience, clarifying that breaks in practice cannot be ignored. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The case of Rejanish K.V. vs K. Deepa (2025) arose from a peculiar legal conundrum. Rejanish K.V., a lawyer with over seven years of practice, applied for the post of district judge through direct recruitment in Kerala.  
• However, before his appointment as district judge materialized, he was selected and joined as a junior judge in the subordinate judiciary.  
• When he was subsequently appointed as district judge, questions arose about his eligibility—was he still qualified for a post reserved for advocates, given that he was now a serving judicial officer? 
• The Kerala High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor vs High Court of Delhi, cancelled his appointment.  
• That precedent had established that the direct recruitment channel was exclusively for practicing advocates with seven years' standing, barring judicial officers from this route.  
• When Rejanish appealed, a three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger Constitution Bench to definitively resolve whether judicial officers could compete for these posts and at what stage their eligibility should be determined. 
• The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and including Justices M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma, and K. Vinod Chandran, delivered its comprehensive 119-page judgment addressing these fundamental questions about judicial recruitment. 

What was the Supreme Court's Observations? 

• On Article 233(2) Interpretation: "The Court said that Article 233(2) doesn't create an exclusive reservation for advocates—it only sets minimum qualifications for candidates from the bar, and the phrase 'a person not already in the service' was deliberately included to allow judicial officers to also compete." 
• On Continuous Experience: "The Court made it clear that only continuous experience counts, ruling that if someone practices law for five years, takes a ten-year break, and then practices for two more years, they won't qualify because the gap creates a disconnect with the legal profession." 
• On Merit and Experience: "The Court observed that the experience gained by working as a judge is invaluable and should enhance a candidate's eligibility rather than disqualify them, as the goal is to find the best and most suitable person for the job." 
• On Judicial Independence: "Justice Sundresh noted that treating judges as mere state employees who cannot compete for higher posts undermines judicial independence, which is a basic feature of the Constitution." 
• These capture the essence of the Court's reasoning in straightforward, accessible language. 

What was the Previous Rule ? 

• The Old Rule (1985-2025): For over 40 years, two Supreme Court cases—Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad(1985) and Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020)—created two separate paths to become a district judge. Practicing lawyers could apply directly after seven years of practice, but sitting judges could only become district judges through internal promotions based on seniority and merit. They couldn't compete in the direct recruitment process at all. 
• How Courts Read the Law: Earlier judgments interpreted Article 233(2) to mean that the phrase "not already in the service" divided candidates into two rigid categories—those already working as judges (promotion route only) and those practicing as lawyers (direct recruitment only). The Dheeraj Mor case specifically said that for direct recruitment, the candidate must be a practicing advocate both when applying and when being appointed. 
• The Recommendation That Wasn't Implemented: The First National Judicial Pay Commission, also called the Shetty Commission, had identified this problem years ago. It recommended that Article 233(2) should be amended to clearly allow judicial officers to compete for direct recruitment. However, no constitutional amendment was ever made, so the issue remained stuck in legal limbo until this recent Supreme Court judgment finally resolved it.

How Has the Supreme Court Transformed the Eligibility Criteria for District Judge Recruitment? 

The Supreme Court's verdict comes with specific directions that will fundamentally alter district judge recruitment across India: 

• Expanded Eligibility Pool: Serving judicial officers are now eligible to apply for district judge posts under the direct recruitment quota, competing alongside practicing advocates. This ends the artificial segregation between the two streams. 
• Seven Years' Combined Experience: To create a level playing field, candidates—whether advocates or judicial officers—must have a minimum of seven years' continuous experience. For serving judges, this can be a combination of years as a practicing lawyer before joining the service and years as a judge. For advocates who were previously in judicial service, their experience across all phases will be counted, provided it's continuous. 
• Continuous Experience Mandate: The Court firmly established that only continuous professional engagement counts. Significant breaks in practice or service will disqualify candidates. This means a lawyer who practiced for five years, took a ten-year break, and then practiced for two more years would not be eligible, as the break creates a "disconnect with the legal profession." 
• Minimum Age Requirement: A uniform minimum age of 35 years has been set for all candidates—both from the bar and judicial service—to apply for district judge recruitment. This aligns with the Shetty Commission's recommendations. 
• Eligibility Assessment Timing: The Court clarified that eligibility must be assessed at the time of application, not at the time of eventual appointment. This resolves the dilemma that arose in Rejanish's case. 

Implementation Timeline 

• All state governments must now work in consultation with their respective High Courts to frame or amend judicial service rules incorporating these changes within three months.  
• The Court emphasized uniformity: "We are in full agreement with the view taken by this Court in All India Judges' Association that the recruitment rules in all the States will have to be uniform as far as possible." 
• The judgment applies prospectively, meaning it will not affect appointments or selection processes completed before October 9, 2025. However, cases where interim orders were passed by High Courts or the Supreme Court will be governed by orders from the benches hearing those specific matters. 

Overruling Precedent 

• In reaching this decision, the Constitution Bench explicitly overruled the law established in Satya Narain Singh (1985) and Dheeraj Mor (2020), along with similar holdings in intermediate judgments like Deepak Aggarwal vs Keshav Kaushik (2013) and Vijay Kumar Mishra vs High Court of Judicature at Patna (2016).  
• The Court invoked the principle that while stare decisis (adherence to precedent) is important, it is not inflexible when a manifest error causes ongoing injustice. "If we fail to correct the legal position, we will be perpetuating the injustice that has been meted out for decades," the judgment declared. 

Conclusion  

This landmark ruling ends decades of artificial separation between lawyers and judges in district court recruitment. By allowing judicial officers to compete while insisting on seven years of continuous experience, the Supreme Court has struck a balance between expanding opportunity and maintaining quality. The message is clear—merit and continuous engagement with law matter more than your current job title, and the best talent should rise to lead India's district judiciary regardless of which side of the courtroom they currently occupy.