Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20484 = 2025 INSC 1208
Decided on: 09.10.2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 759 OF 2017
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
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 316 OF 2017
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 774 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 744 OF 2019
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 780 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 602 OF 2016
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 853 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1080 OF 2019
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 621 OF 2021
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1698 OF 2020
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 868 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 414 OF 2016
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 867 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 405 OF 2016
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 782 OF 2021
IN
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 2018
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
Constitution of India, Article 233 (2) – Appointment of Additional District Judge – Direct recruitment process/ Advocate Quota – Eligibility of Judicial officer – Reference answered:
(i) Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process;
(ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application;
(iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, direction given that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate;
(iv) 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 the Constitution;
(v) In order to ensure level playing field, further direction given that the 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 the date of application.
(vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh (1985) 1 SCC 225 till Dheeraj Mor (2020) 7 SCC 401, which take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not lay down the correct proposition of law.
The reference answered accordingly
All rules framed by the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts which are not in accordance with the aforesaid answers quashed and set aside – Direction given that all the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts shall frame/ amend the rules in accordance with what has been held, within a period of three months.
(Para 171-173)