New Delhi: In a landmark ruling aimed at rejuvenating India’s district judiciary, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on Thursday (October 9, 2025) held that judicial officers with at least seven years of experience at the Bar before joining the service are eligible for appointment as District or Additional District Judges.

The verdict, hailed as a progressive step toward strengthening the lower judiciary, ends a long-standing exclusion that prevented in-service judicial officers—who were once practising lawyers—from being considered for higher judicial appointments under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.

Opening the doors for in-service judicial officers

Until now, only practising advocates with a minimum of seven years of continuous legal practice were eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges. Judicial officers who had earlier served as lawyers but later joined the subordinate judiciary were excluded from this category, despite possessing the same level of experience and competence.

This restriction, the Bench observed, led to a loss of motivation and stagnation among judicial officers and possibly contributed to the backlog and pendency of cases in the lower courts.

Delivering the judgment, CJI B.R. Gavai said, “A lawyer does not stop being a lawyer once he or she joins the judicial service. The experience gained as an advocate continues to be a part of that person’s professional journey.”

The Bench clarified that such judicial officers can now be considered for promotion or appointment as District Judges or Additional District Judges once they have accumulated a combined seven years of experience—as an advocate, judicial officer, or both.

Article 233(2): The constitutional basis

The court’s interpretation centred on Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which governs appointments of District Judges. The provision does not explicitly disqualify in-service judicial officers from being appointed through direct recruitment, provided they meet the experience and eligibility requirements.

The Bench noted, “There is no eligibility bar under Article 233(2) preventing a person who has been or who is in the judicial service of the Union or the State, and who possesses seven years of combined experience as an advocate or a judicial officer, from being appointed as a District Judge.”

This interpretation, the court said, aligns with the spirit of inclusivity and meritocracy, ensuring that both advocates and judicial officers are evaluated on the strength of their cumulative professional experience.

Eligibility criteria and age requirement

The Constitution Bench further directed that the minimum age for both categories—advocates and judicial officers—shall be 35 years as of the date of application for the post of District Judge or Additional District Judge.

The ruling also requires State governments, in consultation with their respective High Courts, to frame or amend recruitment rules in line with the judgment within three months.

This directive ensures uniform implementation across all states and Union Territories, preventing administrative delays that could otherwise hinder eligible candidates.

Implications for the judiciary

Legal experts and judicial officers have welcomed the verdict, calling it a game-changer for judicial service reforms. The decision is expected to broaden the talent pool for District Judge appointments and enhance diversity in judicial leadership.

The move may also bridge the motivational gap between directly recruited judges and those promoted from within the judicial ranks, fostering a more dynamic and competitive environment in the district judiciary.

“By recognising the cumulative experience of judicial officers who were once advocates, the Supreme Court has not only upheld fairness but also addressed a structural issue that has persisted for decades,” said a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, commenting on the judgment.

Tackling pendency and ensuring efficiency

The Supreme Court’s reasoning also ties the reform to the long-standing issue of case pendency. By promoting experienced judicial officers with practical courtroom exposure and legal insight, the move is expected to improve decision-making speed and quality at the district level.

Observers believe that younger judicial officers who join service early will now have a clear and faster path of progression, reducing attrition and encouraging high-performing talent to remain within the system.

Directive to states and high courts

Emphasising the urgency of reform, the Bench instructed all State governments to act promptly. “The respective High Courts and State governments shall amend or frame necessary recruitment rules in conformity with this judgment within a period of three months,” the order read.

The CJI-led Bench also clarified that appointments already made will not be disturbed, and the new interpretation will apply prospectively.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a progressive reinterpretation of Article 233(2), expanding eligibility for District Judge appointments to include judicial officers who have a cumulative seven years of experience in law—either as practising advocates or as judges.

By ensuring parity and recognising prior professional experience, the judgment not only opens new avenues for judicial officers but also strengthens the overall judicial system. In doing so, it promises a more motivated, youthful, and efficient judiciary ready to tackle the growing burden of cases across India’s courts.