The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 23, 2025) began a hearing on an important legal question as to whether judicial officers could be appointed as District Judges under the vacancies prescribed for the bar, who have advocated for seven years before joining the back.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, Justice MM Sundaresh, Justice Arvind Kumar, Justice SC Sharma and a five -member constitution bench of Vinod Chandran of Justice have started hearing on 30 petitions making extensive impact on judicial recruitment across the country.

The bench is hearing questions related to the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution related to the appointment of district judges. According to Article 233, ‘Appointment, posting and promotion of District Judges in any state will be done by the Governor in consultation with the High Court of that state.’

It also states, “Any person who is not already in the service of the Union or the state, will be eligible to be appointed as the District Judge when he has been an advocate or lawyer for at least seven years and recommended his appointment on behalf of the High Court.”

Diwani judges have been stopped from participating in direct recruitment examinations for the posts of District Judge. Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for these judges, started making his arguments. He said that despite advocating for seven years before joining the subordinate judiciary, many judicial officers were stopped from applying under bar quota.

Based on the decisions given earlier, their petitions were dismissed in various high courts. Bhushan argued that this issue has now turned into a very important constitutional interpretation question. Referring to the four major questions to consider, Bhushan said that the first issue is whether the judicial officer, who advocated for seven years before joining the judicial service, is entitled to appointment as Additional District Judge under the vacancies of Bar quota.

Referring to the second issue, he said, “Is the eligibility for the appointment of District Judge should be assessed at the application, appointment or both level.” He said that the third issue is whether Article 233 (2) determines different eligibility for already serving persons in the union or judicial services of the state. He said about the fourth question, “Does the joint period of seven years as a lawyer and judicial officer make a candidate eligible for the appointment of the District Judge.”

The hearing in the case is still going on.

Earlier, on September 12, a CJI -led bench had said that it would start the hearing from 23 September and will hear the arguments for three days till 25 September.

The bench had said that it would start hearing on the important question whether a judicial officer, who has completed seven years in the bar before joining a bench, is entitled to become additional district judge (ADJ) in view of a vacancy.

However, the Chief Justice warned against such an interpretation, which can “a situation where only two years of experience can be eligible.”

The posts of ADJ as part of higher judicial service are filled through promotion of lower judicial officers. These posts are also filled through direct recruitment of lawyers, who have at least seven years of experience in the bar.

The issue to consider is whether a judicial officer of the lower court can also apply for the posts of ADJ under direct recruitment quota for lawyers and whether his seven years of experience as judicial officer or lawyer or both can be counted.