In a significant move to rejuvenate India’s district judiciary, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, has ruled that judicial officers who previously spent at least seven years as lawyers are now eligible for appointment as District or Additional District Judges. This progressive decision aims to infuse new talent into these critical positions.
Traditionally, only practicing lawyers with seven years of experience were considered for direct recruitment as District Judges. This often left in-service judicial officers, even those with substantial prior experience at the bar, overlooked. The Court acknowledged that this oversight contributed to stagnation and potentially impacted the efficiency of lower courts.
Chief Justice Gavai emphasized that an individual’s legal expertise doesn’t vanish upon joining judicial service. The Bench clarified that Article 233(2) of the Constitution does not preclude those already in Union or State judicial service from being considered for District Judge roles.
The judgment explicitly states that “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.”
Furthermore, the Constitution Bench mandated a minimum age of 35 years for both advocates and judicial officers aspiring to become District or Additional District Judges, calculated from the date of application.
State governments are now tasked with collaborating with their respective High Courts to amend or formulate new rules in line with this judgment within three months. This ruling is expected to bring about substantial reforms and career progression opportunities within the subordinate judiciary across India.