The Constitution of India
Article 233
Appointment of district judges
(1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
Why this exists
The framers wanted district judges — who handle serious civil and criminal cases at the local level — to be appointed through a process that keeps the judiciary independent from day-to-day political control. By requiring the Governor (the state's executive head) to act only 'in consultation with' the High Court, the Constitution ensures judicial expertise, not just executive preference, shapes who becomes a judge. The seven-year practice requirement and High Court recommendation for outside candidates ensure that lawyers appointed directly (rather than promoted from within the judicial service) have sufficient experience and are vetted by judges themselves.
How courts read it
In Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966), the Supreme Court struck down appointments of district judges made without genuine consultation with the High Court, holding that 'consultation' under Article 233 must be real and effective, not a formality, and that administrative officers could not bypass the eligibility rules meant for judicial appointments. Later, in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), a Constitution Bench clarified that judicial officers already serving in the subordinate judiciary cannot use the 'advocate' route under Article 233(2), since that clause is meant only for those 'not already in the service of the Union or of the State' — reinforcing a clear separation between the promotion channel and the direct-recruitment channel for district judges.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The Governor can appoint anyone as a district judge based on personal or political preference.
Fact: Courts have held that the Governor must genuinely consult the High Court, and appointments made without real consultation can be struck down. - Myth: A sitting judicial officer can also apply as an 'advocate' under Article 233(2) to get appointed faster.
Fact: The Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) held that Article 233(2)'s advocate route is only for those not already in judicial or government service; existing judicial officers must rely on promotion, not this clause.