Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa

Facts

A batch of matters raised the eligibility of serving judicial officers for direct recruitment as District Judges. In Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, a three-Judge Bench had held that a candidate for direct recruitment against the advocates' quota must have practised for seven years in the immediate past, must be in practice on the cut-off date and on the date of appointment, must not be in judicial service, and could not combine judicial service with practice. By order dated 12 August 2025 a three-Judge Bench referred two questions to a Constitution Bench: whether a judicial officer who had completed seven years at the Bar before joining the subordinate judicial service could be appointed against the Bar vacancy, and when eligibility is to be judged. On 12 September 2025 the Constitution Bench framed two more questions on the eligibility of persons already in judicial service.

Questions before the Court

1. Whether a judicial officer who had completed seven years at the Bar before joining the subordinate judicial service is entitled to appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy.
2. Whether eligibility for appointment as District Judge is to be seen at the time of application, at the time of appointment, or both.
3. Whether Article 233(2) prescribes any eligibility for a person already in the judicial service, and whether seven years as Civil Judge, or as advocate and Civil Judge combined, makes a person eligible.

What the Court held

• Article 233(2) provides two sources of appointment. The seven years' practice requirement applies only to a person not already in the service of the Union or State; it prescribes no qualification for a person in judicial service. Reading it otherwise would make the words 'a person not already in the service' redundant.
• Judicial officers who completed seven years at the Bar before joining service, and in-service candidates with a combined seven years as advocate and judicial officer, are eligible for direct recruitment as District Judge. Eligibility is seen on the date of application, and the experience must be continuous on that date.
• To provide a level playing field, the rules must require seven years' combined experience for in-service candidates and a minimum age of 35 years on the date of application for both advocates and judicial officers.
• The direct recruitment share is not a quota reserved only for practising advocates. The decisions from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor misapplied Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan and do not lay down the correct law; the plea of stare decisis was rejected.
• Rules contrary to these answers were quashed, and States in consultation with High Courts must frame or amend rules within three months. The ruling applies prospectively: completed selections and appointments are unaffected, except where interim orders were passed.

Why it matters

The Constitution Bench reinterprets Article 233(2) and holds that four decades of decisions, from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor, do not lay down the correct law, opening direct recruitment as District Judges to serving judicial officers. It lays down eligibility conditions (seven years' combined experience, minimum age of 35) and a three month deadline for new rules. It also states that stare decisis does not prevent correcting a long standing error in constitutional interpretation.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

Provisions interpreted

• Article 233, Constitution

Case and bench

Parties

Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa and Others

Case

Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020 (with connected writ petitions, review petitions and miscellaneous applications)

Decided

9 October 2025

Bench

B.R. Gavai, M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma, K. Vinod Chandran

Opinions

Unanimous. Main judgment by B.R. Gavai, CJI, signed also by Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.; M.M. Sundresh, J. wrote a separate opinion in full agreement with its reasoning, conclusion and directions, adding his views on Article 233.

Questions on this case

From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.

1. Question 1, Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3

   In Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa (Constitution Bench, 9 October 2025), the Supreme Court held that a judicial officer who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the subordinate judicial service:

   1. A. can become a District Judge only by promotion, because direct recruitment under Article 233(2) is reserved exclusively for practising advocates
   2. B. may compete in direct recruitment only if the High Court certifies that no advocate of seven years' standing applied for the vacancy
   3. C. may compete in direct recruitment only after resigning from service, because eligibility under Article 233(2) is tested on the date of appointment
   4. D. is entitled to compete in direct recruitment for District Judge, and Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) is not good law
   Show the answer

   D. is entitled to compete in direct recruitment for District Judge, and Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) is not good law

   The Constitution Bench answered that such judicial officers are entitled to be appointed District Judge or Additional District Judge in the direct recruitment process, that eligibility is seen at the time of application, and that the line of decisions from Satya Narain Singh (1985) to Dheeraj Mor (2020) taking the contrary view does not lay down correct law. Article 233(2) prescribes seven years as an advocate or pleader for a person not already in the service of the Union or the State.

2. Question 2, Landmark Judgments Practice Set 3

   X practised as an advocate for four years and has since served for three years as a Civil Judge. On the date she applies in a direct recruitment process for the post of District Judge she is 34 years old. Applying the directions in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa (2025), which statement is correct?

   1. A. She is eligible, because her combined experience as an advocate and a judicial officer is seven years on the date of application
   2. B. She is eligible, because Article 233(2) prescribes no qualification at all for persons already in the judicial service of the State
   3. C. She is not eligible, because a judicial officer must have seven years of practice at the Bar alone, excluding the period of judicial service
   4. D. She is not eligible, because the minimum age for both advocates and judicial officers is 35 years on the date of application
   Show the answer

   D. She is not eligible, because the minimum age for both advocates and judicial officers is 35 years on the date of application

   Rejanish K.V. directed that an in-service candidate must have seven years of combined experience as advocate and judicial officer, which X has, but also fixed 35 years as the minimum age, on the date of application, for both advocates and judicial officers. At 34, X fails the age condition, so the combined-experience argument does not help her.