Article 233: Appointment of District Judges

A district judge sits at the top of a district’s courts. Who should pick this judge? If the State Government alone picked, it could choose loyal people. Article 233 shares the power. The Governor appoints, but the High Court must be consulted. In 2025, the Supreme Court changed who can apply. What changed?

1Who Appoints District Judges?

• Article 233(1) says the Governor appoints, posts and promotes district judges.
• The Governor must act in consultation with the High Court of that State.
• The High Court is a check on the executive. It helps keep the courts independent.
• The Chief Justice of the High Court does not appoint alone.
• The President does not appoint district judges.

2Why Does the High Court Get a Say?

• District judges decide cases that touch ordinary people every day.
• If ministers alone chose them, judges might fear the government. That would harm fair trials.
• The High Court knows the lawyers and judges of its State. So its advice matters.
• The Constitution also asks the State to separate the judiciary from the executive. This is in the Directive Principles, under Article 50.
• Article 235 adds more. The High Court controls the lower courts after appointment.
• In Chandra Mohan, the Court said the Governor may consult the High Court alone. No other body can take its place.

3What Are the Two Doors to the Post?

• The first door is promotion. Judges from the lower courts rise to district judge.
• The second door is direct recruitment from the Bar.
• For direct recruitment, Article 233(2) needs seven years as an advocate or pleader.
• The High Court must recommend the person.
• The person must not already be in the service of the Union or the State.

4What Happened in the Chandra Mohan and Rejanish Cases?

• In Uttar Pradesh, district judges were being picked using a selection committee. Some came from the executive side, such as revenue and magistrate posts.
• Candidates went to court. The case was Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P.
• On 8 August 1966, the Supreme Court ruled the process illegal. The Governor may consult the High Court only. And “service” in Article 233(2) means the judicial service.
• Many appointments were now in doubt. Parliament added Article 233A by the 20th Amendment (1966) to protect them.
• Later, a long question came up. Could a serving judge apply through the Bar quota?
• In 2020, Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi said no. The two doors stayed apart.
• Then came Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa from Kerala. Rejanish was an advocate with over seven years of practice. He became a magistrate in 2017, and a district judge in 2019.
• His rival, Deepa, said he was no longer an advocate. So he was not eligible for the Bar quota.
• A five-judge Constitution Bench heard the case.
• On 9 October 2025, it overruled the line of cases from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor.
• Now a serving judicial officer with seven years combined as judge and advocate can apply directly. The minimum age is 35.
• The ruling works from 9 October 2025. Appointments already made stay protected.

5How Do Articles 233, 234 and 235 Differ?

• 233 covers district judges.
• 234 covers recruitment of judicial officers below district judge.
• 235 gives the High Court control over the lower courts, including posting and promotion.
• A separate May 2025 ruling restored a three-year Bar-practice rule for entry-level judges. That is not an Article 233 rule.

6What Should You Remember for Exams?

Must Know

• The Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court.
• Direct recruitment needs seven years as an advocate.

Good to Know

• There are two routes: promotion and direct recruitment.
• Chandra Mohan (1966) led to Article 233A.

Great to Know

• The Chief Justice does not appoint alone (Trap).
• Dheeraj Mor (2020) is no longer the last word (Trap).
• Article 233 is not Article 234 (Trap).

7How Has This Been Asked in Exams?