Supreme Court held that Continuous 7-Year Practice Mandatory for Direct Appointment as District Judge Under Article 233(2)

In a significant ruling delivered on October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that the requirement of seven years of practice as an advocate, as mandated under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, must be continuous as of the date of application for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge.

A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma, and K Vinod Chandran made this observation while deciding the eligibility criteria for candidates applying through the Bar quota.

The Court held that a break in legal practice cannot be ignored, as such a break would cause a “disconnect” from the litigation field, thereby rendering the candidate ineligible. The Bench rejected the contention that a candidate with a total experience of seven years, albeit with breaks, should be considered qualified.

“Insofar as the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of some of the Petitioners that even if there is a break in the number of years of practice of a candidate, such break should be ignored and such persons who are having a total of seven years of practice should be considered eligible for appointment insofar as the direct district judges is concerned, we are not inclined to accept the said contention,” the Bench stated.

The Court clarified that only those persons who have continuous experience, either as advocates, pleaders (including Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors), or as judicial officers, or a combination thereof, will be eligible for appointment through direct recruitment.

“We say so because say if a person has practised for five years and thereafter he takes a break of ten years and thereafter practises for two years, there will be a disconnect with the legal profession. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that only such persons working either as an advocate/pleader including Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors or as a judicial officer who, on the date of application, have a continuous experience of either an advocate/pleader or a judicial officer or a combination thereof shall only be eligible to be considered for appointment as district judges through the stream of direct recruitment,” the Court reasoned.

Notably, the Court also reaffirmed that a judicial officer with seven years of combined experience as an advocate and as a judge, as on the date of application, is eligible for consideration against the Bar quota for the post of District Judge.

This judgment is expected to bring clarity and uniformity in the interpretation of Article 233(2) and the process of direct recruitment of District Judges across States.

Case Title: Rejanish K.V. vs. K. Deepa