District Judge Direct Appointment | 7 Year Practice Mandate Not Fulfilled If There's Break In Practice : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that a break in practice cannot be ignored while considering the mandate of 7-year practice as an advocate, prescribed under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, for direct appointment as a District Judge.The Court clarified that 7-year practice must be "continuous" as on the date of application.The observation was made by a 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran.The bench concluded this while holding that a judicial officer, who has a combined experience of 7 years both as a lawyer and as a judge, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar vacancy.The bench observed: “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 Court reasoned that such a break in practice would be seen as a 'disconnect' from the litigation filed. Thus only those who, on the date of application, possess continuous experience as an advocate, pleader (including Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors), or judicial officer, or a combination would be eligible for consideration.“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.”Also Read : BREAKING| Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience On Date Of Application Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District Judges : Supreme Court Judicial Officers' Experience Greater Than That Of Practising Advocates: Supreme Court In District Judge Recruitment CaseOther stories about the judgment can be read here.Case Details : REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020]Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

District Judge Direct Appointment | 7 Year Practice Mandate Not Fulfilled If There's Break In Practice : Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

The 7-year practice must be continuous, the Court held.

Tags