Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1792

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI., M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Rejanish K.V. – Appellant
VERSUS
K. Deepa And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020 With Writ Petition (C) No. 759 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No. 1278 of 2019 Review Petition (C) No. 381 OF 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 396 of 2018 Review Petition (C) No 385 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2020 Review Petition (C) No 1027 of 2021 IN Writ Petition (C) No. 405 of 2016 Review Petition (C) No 379 of 2021 IN Writ Petition (C) No. 578 of 2018 Miscellaneous Application No. 179 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 405 of 2016 Review Petition (C) No 669 of 2021 IN Writ Petition (C) No. 999 of 2019 Review Petition (C) No 380 of 2021 IN Writ Petition (C) No. 222 of 2017 Miscellaneous Application No. 1050 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No.1698 of 2020 Review Petition (C) No 781 of 2021 IN With Writ Petition (C) No. 316 of 2017 Review Petition (C) No. 774 of 2021 Writ Petition (C) No 744 of 2019 Review Petition (C) No 780 of 2021 Writ Petition (C) No 602 of 2016 Review Petition (C) No. 853 of 2021 Writ Petition (C) No. 1080 of 2019 Review Petition (C) No. 621 of 2021 Writ Petition (C) No 1698 of 2020 Review Petition (C) No. 868 OF 2021 Writ Petition (C) No 414 of 2016 Review Petition (C) No. 867 of 2021 Writ Petition (C) No 405 of 2016 Review Petition (C) No. 782 of 2021 Writ Petition (C) No 639 of 2018 Writ Petition (C) No 857 of 2021 Review Petition (C) No. 989 of 2021 In Transfer Petition (C) No. 272 of 2018 Review Petition (C) No. 996 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1703 of 2020 Writ Petition (C) No. 864 of 2021 Review Petition (C) No. 835 OF 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 2020 Review Petition (C) No. 836 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1706 of 2020 Review Petition (C) No. of 2025 Diary No. 18470 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 608 of Review Petition (C) No. 1354 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2020 Review Petition (C) No. 1042 of 2022 In Writ Petition (C) No. 999 of 2019 Civil Appeal No. 11390 of 2025 Writ Petition (C) No. 827 of 2025
Decided On : 09-10-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. Jayant Bhusan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Yatharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Amartya Bhusan, Adv. Mr. Yogit Mehra, Adv. Mr. Divesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shrishti Gautam, Adv. Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Rohan J. Alva, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, AOR Ms. Charu Mathur, Adv. Mr. Anant Sanghi, Adv. Ms. Gayatri T., Adv. Mr. Vansh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, AOR Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv. Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Ms. Rohini Narayanan, Adv. Mr. Sanket, Adv. Ms. Nehaol Venkateshwara, Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Adv. Mr. Amith S J, Adv. Ms. Harshika Verma, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv. Ms. Triyyambika Rao, Adv. Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Abhishekh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, Adv. Mr. Shravanth Paruchuri, Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Ms. Barnali Basak, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. Shashank Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv. Mr. Sanyam Maan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv. Mr. V. Puneedhan, Adv. Ms. D. Naveena, Adv. Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv. Ms. Saumya Saraswat, Adv. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Mr. Pratap Shanker, Adv. Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv. Mr. Kumar Manish, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. George Poonthottam, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. M Firoz, Adv. Mr. K. M. Firoz, Adv. Mr. Ashish Jacob Mathew, Adv. Mr. Navaneeth Krishnan A.l, Adv. Ms. Silpa Sreekumar, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Abhilash M.r., Adv. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Bhumika Yadav, Adv. Kashish Jain, Adv. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle,Sr.Adv. Mr. Rashid N. Azam, AOR Mr. Nirmal Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Rinny Abraham, Adv. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Nu Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Srikar Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam,Sr.Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Prafulla, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Adv. Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Santhosh Kumar Kolkundra, Adv. Mr. N Leela Vara Prasad, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saket Jee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kalra, Adv. Mr. Niraj Gupta, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Arshit Torgal, Adv. For M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Md. Naushad Alam, AOR Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Vij, Adv. Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Ritul Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,Sr.Adv. Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy,Sr.Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. Ravindra Harpale,Adv. Mr. Sagar V. Kasar,Adv. Mr. parnam Prabhakar,Adv. Ms. Vangala Sailaja,Adv. Ms. Drishti Narbar,Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran,Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh,Adv. Mr. Chittimalla Chandarakala,Adv. Mr. Narendar Rao Thaneer,Adv. Mr. Batchu Jagadish Kumar,Adv. Mr. B. Pallesh Kalshmi,Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava,Adv. Mr. D. Srinivas,Adv. Mr. MVS Anil Kumar Rajagiri,Adv. Ms. Palisi Bharat Kumar,Adv. Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Gautam, AOR Mr. Devashish Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Madhura Mn, Adv. Ms. Ansh Gulati, Adv. Ms. Kanak Grover, Adv. Mr. Daksh Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Adv. Ms. Gauri Bedi, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Misra, Adv. Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar,Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, AOR Mr. Hari Om Singh,Adv. Ms. Vandana,Adv. Mr. Aditya K.,Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Kumar Murlidhar,Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey,Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh,Adv.
For the Respondent(s)/Applicant(s):Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. EMS Anam, Adv. Ms. Usha Nandini V., AOR Mr. Biju P Raman, Adv. Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv. Ms. Bidya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Katyayani Suhrud, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kalaiyarasan, Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Jimut Mohopatra, Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Adv. Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Adv. Ms. Nandini Rai, Adv. Mr. Aashay Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Boudhik Garg, Adv. M/s Kavya Verma, Adv. Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv. Mr. Atharv Joshi, Adv. Ms. Muskan Bensla, Adv. Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR Mr. Robin Singh, Adv. Mr. Kapil Balwani, Adv. Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, AOR Mr. Prasanna, Adv. Mrs. Vani Singhal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nivedita Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Avantika Shankas, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Jolly, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. Kanav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajat Pandey, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Makan, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Boudhik Garg, Adv. M/s Kavya Verma, Adv. Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv. Mr. Atharv Joshi, Adv. Ms. Muskan Bensla, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Viraj M. Parakh, Adv. Mr. Mayur Saavarkar, Adv. Ms. Sindoora VNL, AOR Ms. Thithiksha Padmam, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv. Mr. Naman Jain, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Meesala Venu Gopal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Korada Pramod Kumar, Adv. Ms. Divya Nair, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Dr. Kk Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nitya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. A. Hariprasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Swathi H Prasad, Adv. Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Adv. Mr. Ajaya Kumar K.r., Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv. Mr. John Mathew, AOR Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. S A Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Prafulla, Adv. Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. M V S Anil Kumar Rajagiri, Adv. Mr. Pasili Bharat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Kavya Manuja, Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Mr. Rashid N. Azam, AOR Mr. Nirmal Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Rinny Abraham, Adv. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Faizan, Adv. Mr. Firoz I Khan, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Fatima Parveen, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. S A Singh, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. K R Anand, Adv. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Prachi Sohi, Adv. Ms. Pooja Devi, Adv. Mr. Vijender Mann, Adv. Mr. A M Bujor Barua, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Deb Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Mrs. A Deepa, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR Mr. Pramod Sharma Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Ankur Mishra, Adv. Mr. Santosh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Bhaimad, Adv. Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Adv. Mrs. Arpana Soni, Adv. Mrs. Parveen Qureshi, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Aman Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Uddaish Palya, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. M.p. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Bharti, Adv. Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv. Mr. Virag Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR Ms. Rupali Panwar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. Mr. Avinash Singh, Adv. Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Satyam Chand Soriya,Adv. Mr. Pawas Agarwal, AOR Mr. Sagar Tanwar,Adv. Ms. Ruby Choudhary,Adv. Mr. Sonu,Adv. Mr. Triloki Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Adv. Ms. J. Akshitha, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Jain, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv. Mr. T. Singhdev, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Ms. Barnali Basak, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. Shashank Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv. Mr. Sanyam Maan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment as District Judge/Additional District Judge – 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 – Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in selection process for post of District Judges in direct recruitment process – Eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application.
(2) Interpretation of constitutional provisions cannot be pedantic – It has to be organic – A purposeful interpretation has to be adopted.
(3) There is no bar on persons in judicial service from competing for vacancies intended to be filled through direct recruitment.

Headnote:
Per B.R. GAVAI, CJI [For himself and on behalf of ARAVIND KUMAR, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA and K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.]
(A) Constitution of India – Article 233(2) – Appointment as District Judge/Additional District Judge – 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 – Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in selection process for post of District Judges in direct recruitment process – Eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application – Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of Union or of State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an Advocate – 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 Constitution – In order to ensure level playing field, 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 date of application – No reason to deny opportunity to such young talented judicial officers to compete with Advocates/Pleaders having seven years’ practice in the matter of direct recruitment to post of District Judge. (Paras 148, 150 and 172)
(B) Constitutional Law – Interpretation of constitutional provisions cannot be pedantic – It has to be organic – A purposeful interpretation has to be adopted – If appointment to District Judges Cadre is to be made directly for the purpose of enhancing efficiency of District Judiciary, any interpretation which restricts competition and prohibits otherwise meritorious candidates from zone of consideration will have to be eschewed – Interpretation which advances purpose of bringing in efficiency in District Judiciary and permitting broad-based competition amongst all eligible candidates will have to be accepted. (Para 153)
Per M. M. Sundresh, J. [Separate Assenting View]
Constitution of India – Article 233(2) – Appointment as District Judge/Additional District Judge – Word “eligible” used in Article 233(2) of Constitution must be read as qualified – A person who has been an Advocate or a Pleader for not less than seven years, along with recommendation of High Court is one qualification, and a person in judicial service is other qualification – Both of these qualifications are nothing but mere gateways for being appointed to post of a district judge, facilitating a threshold for entry – However, there is no bar on High Court to fix qualification, qua persons in judicial service, with approval of Governor – These qualifications are meant only for consideration for appointment, subject to successful completion of recruitment process – There is no bar on persons in judicial service from competing for vacancies intended to be filled through direct recruitment – Any interpretation contrary to this view, would amount to reservation in favour of ‘an Advocate or a Pleader,’ which is not only not contemplated under Constitution, but also violates very spirit enshrined thereunder – Construing Article 233(2) of Constitution to be a provision meant only for category of ‘an Advocate or a Pleader’ would certainly be violative of Article 14 of Constitution, for the purpose of its interpretation – A contra view would amount to creation of a quota for ‘an Advocate or a Pleader – Absolute bar on persons in judicial service would certainly prevent meritorious candidates from competing for vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, which would be affront to Constitutional spirit. (Paras 18, 19 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Points in Issue: –
(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?
(iii) Whether there is any eligibility prescribed for a person already in judicial service of Union or State under Article 233(2) of 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?
Findings of Court:
All such rules framed by State Governments in consultation with High Courts which are not in accordance with aforesaid answers shall stand quashed and set aside. All State Governments in consultation with High Courts shall frame/amend the rules in accordance with what has been held hereinabove, within a period of three months from today.
Result : Reference answered.

Judgement Key Points

The key paragraph saving appointments is (!) .

This paragraph states: "Consequently, all such rules framed by the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts which are not in accordance with the aforesaid answers shall stand quashed and set aside." It explicitly limits the quashing to non-compliant rules only, thereby preserving all prior appointments made under compliant rules or processes. Additionally, (!) reinforces this by clarifying prospective application: "what we have held in this judgment will be applicable only from the date of this judgment and in no case, any selection process completed, or any appointment made prior to this judgment would be affected." Together, these ensure appointments remain valid unless directly invalidated by interim orders.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

	INDEX
A. INTRODUCTION
B. SUBMISSIONS
C. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
D. PROVISION OF LAW AND PRECEDENTS
i. Text of Article 233 of the Constitution
ii. Case Laws
a. Rameshwar Dayal v. The State of Punjab and Others
b. Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
c. State of Assam and Another v. Kuseswar Saikia and Others
d. A. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
e. Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others
f. Sushma Suri v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another
g. Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others
h. Vijay Kumar Mishra and Another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna
i. Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi
j. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others
E. CONSIDERATION
i. Textual and Contextual Interpretation
ii. Scheme of Article 233 of the Constitution
iii. Recommendations of the Shetty Commission
iv. Experience of a Judicial Officer
v. Interpretation of a Constitutional Provision cannot be pedantic
vi. Eligibility of a Judicial Officer for Direct Recruitment
vii. Break in practice of a prospective candidate
viii. Quota for Advocates under Article 233(2)
ix. Doctrine of stare decisis
F. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

A. INTRODUCTION

1. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in this batch of matters, vide order dated 12th August 2025, 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?

2. When this batch of matters was listed for directions on 12th September 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?

3. For ease of convenience, the parties that support the proposition and contend that the questions framed be answered in favour of in-service candidates and they be permitted to participate in direct recruitment for the post of district judges will be referred to as the Petitioners and those opposing the proposition and contending that the direct recruitment should be only from the category of advocates with seven years’ practice will be referred to as the Respondents.

B. SUBMISSIONS

4. We have extensively heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. V. Giri, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Mr. George Poonthottam, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Mr. Anil Kaushik, Mr. Amit Anand Tewari, Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Mr. Narendra Hooda and Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners.

5. We have also extensively heard Mr. C.U. Singh, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Mr. Rajiv Shakdher learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr. Rashid N. Azam, Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Mr. Yashvardhan, Ms. Kavya Jhawar and Ms. Nandini Rai learned counsel for the Respondents and Mr. Siddharth Gupta and Mr. Satyam Chand Soriya for the intervenors.

6. We have also perused the material painstakingly put together by Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh and Mr. John Mathew who assisted the Court as Nodal Counsel for the Par