New Delhi, August 12, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has recently referred to a Constitution Bench the important question of whether judicial officers can be appointed as district judges against vacancies reserved for advocates, commonly known as “bar vacancies.” This reference marks a significant step toward clarifying the legal framework governing judicial appointments in the country.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed the order, highlighting that the matter hinges on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution. This provision states that a person who is not already in the service of the Union or a State can be appointed as a district judge only if they have been an advocate or pleader for not less than seven years.
The controversy arises because district judge posts are filled both by promoting judicial officers from within the subordinate judiciary and by direct recruitment from practicing advocates, with certain vacancies specifically reserved for the latter. The question before the Court is whether judicial officers, who are already part of the state judicial service, can be appointed against vacancies earmarked for advocates.
Several states and high courts have differed on this issue. Proponents of allowing judicial officers to fill bar vacancies argue that their judicial experience qualifies them to hold any district judge post. Conversely, opponents contend that bar vacancies must remain exclusive to advocates to preserve the intended balance in judicial appointments.
By referring the issue to a Constitution Bench, the Supreme Court aims to provide authoritative guidance on the interpretation of Article 233(2), balancing constitutional principles such as judicial independence, merit, and fair representation.
The Constitution Bench’s ruling is expected to set uniform standards for judicial appointments across India, impacting the recruitment process and career progression within the judiciary.
Until the Constitution Bench delivers its verdict, judicial appointment authorities are advised to exercise caution and adhere strictly to existing constitutional and statutory provisions.