Is ‘Bar Quota’ open to serving judges with prior Bar practice? — ‘Substantial constitutional question’ sent to 5-Judge Bench

“Ordinarily… the matter ought to have been placed before a Bench of five learned Judges.”- Supreme Court pressed pause on a long-running tug-of-war over who can compete for District Judge posts through the “Bar quota”. In Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Others (with a clutch of connected review petitions, writs, and appeals), a Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, referred the controversy to a Constitution Bench of five Judges—holding that the proper interpretation of Article 233(2) is a “substantial question of law” that must be decided by a larger Bench. The Court candidly acknowledged: “Ordinarily, in view of the question involving interpretation of Article 233(2), the matter ought to have been placed before a Bench of five learned Judges.”

The reference squarely reopens what Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) had seemingly settled: whether a serving judicial officer—who had already completed seven years at the Bar before joining the service—can still be considered for District Judge recruitment against vacancies earmarked for advocates. In 2020, a three-Judge Bench held that direct recruitment under Article 233(2) is only for those not already in judicial service, leaving career judges to rise via promotion or LDCE. Today’s order bluntly signals that a three-Judge ruling is not enough when the Constitution’s text is on the anvil.

A trail of petitions, reviews, and clarificatory pleas challenged Dheeraj Mor, pointing out that even before 2020 the issue had been noted for Constitution Bench consideration. The Court recalled its own 23 January 2018 order recording that the interpretation of Article 233(2) posed a substantial constitutional question, and that in G. Sabitha (10 May 2018) it was expressly stated the question was pending before a Constitution Bench. Against that canvas, the present Bench noted that the 2020 decision—delivered by three Judges—could not be the last word on a plainly constitutional issue.

Article 145(3) and why five Judges matter

Invoking Article 145(3), the Court emphasized that cases “involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution” must be heard by not less than five Judges. Reinforcing that position by citing past practice and principle, the Bench underlined that timelines or administrative happenstance cannot dilute a structural constitutional safeguard. Put simply, when Article 233(2) is being construed, a five-Judge Bench is the minimum.

What exactly will the Constitution Bench decide?

The Court framed two precise questions for authoritative resolution, moving past the thicket of case-specific disputes and zeroing in on the doctrinal core. First, whether a judicial officer who had already completed seven years at the Bar before recruitment into the subordinate judiciary can be appointed as Additional District Judge against the Bar quota. Second, whether eligibility for appointment as District Judge under Article 233(2) is to be tested at the time of application, at the time of appointment, or both.

In framing these questions, the Bench was careful to distinguish earlier Constitution Bench rulings like Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan, noting those decisions answered different problems—counting Lahore High Court practice pre-Partition, and whether “service” in Article 233(2) meant judicial service rather than any State service. Here, the Court said, the present dispute is distinct and demands a fresh constitutional look.

The operative directions—and their immediate impact

The Court has referred the two questions to a Constitution Bench and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of the Bench. It made clear that the “present batch” will be taken up after the reference is answered. The order’s tone is unmistakable: “The issues involved in the present batch of petitions ought to have been decided by a Constitution Bench of not less than five Judges.”

By doing so, the Supreme Court has deliberately reopened the gate for advocates with prior Bar standing who later joined the judiciary—and, just as importantly, for High Courts framing recruitment rules. Until the Constitution Bench speaks, uncertainty over eligibility clocks and the Bar-quota pipeline will remain; but the payoff is a definitive, larger-Bench settlement of a question that shapes careers across the Bar and Bench alike.

The Supreme Court has restored the constitutional architecture to the center of the District Judge eligibility debate. In its own words, questions on Article 233(2) require the “minimum” of five Judges. The legal community now awaits a Constitution Bench ruling that could redraw the map of entry into the District Judiciary—clarifying whether prior Bar practice travels with a judicial officer into the Bar quota, and exactly when eligibility must be measured.

Date of Decision: 12 August 2025