Article 233 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 233 of the Constitution of India
Title: Appointment of District Judges
🔹 Text of Article 233:
(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.
📘 Explanation of Article 233:
Article 233 deals with the appointment, promotion, and posting of District Judges (not subordinate judges) in Indian states. It ensures that such appointments are carried out with both executive approval (Governor) and judicial scrutiny (High Court consultation) to uphold judicial independence and quality.
✅ Key Points:
| Clause | Key Provision |
|---|---|
| 233(1) | Governor appoints District Judges after consulting the concerned High Court |
| 233(2) | Only a person with 7 years' experience as an advocate/pleader, and not already in State/Central service, is eligible for direct recruitment |
⚖️ Key Case Laws on Article 233:
1. Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (AIR 1966 SC 1987)
Issue: Whether executive can appoint district judges without High Court's consultation.
Held: The consultation with the High Court is mandatory; any appointment without it is unconstitutional.
Relevance: Reinforces that judicial independence must be maintained in appointments.
2. Union of India v. Sankalchand Sheth (1977 AIR 2328)
Issue: Though this primarily deals with the transfer of judges, it reiterates the importance of judicial consultation in judicial appointments.
Relevance: Reaffirms judicial consultation under Articles including 233.
3. Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik (2013) 5 SCC 277
Issue: Eligibility of public prosecutors for District Judge posts under Article 233(2).
Held: Public prosecutors not in regular judicial service are eligible only if they have 7 years’ advocacy experience and are not full-time government servants.
Relevance: Clarified who is considered “not in service” under Article 233(2).
4. Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502
Issue: Challenge to appointment of ad hoc judges.
Held: Emphasized the need for judicial independence in appointments, particularly under Article 233.
Relevance: Reiterated the consultative role of High Courts in District Judge appointments.
📝 Eligibility Criteria under Article 233(2):
| Requirement | Description |
|---|---|
| Not in service | The person must not be in judicial or administrative service of Centre/State |
| Legal experience | At least 7 years as an Advocate or Pleader |
| Recommendation | Must be recommended by the High Court |
🔄 Related Constitutional Provisions:
| Article | Subject |
|---|---|
| 234 | Appointment of persons other than District Judges |
| 235 | Control over subordinate courts |
| 217 | Appointment of High Court Judges |
| 236 | Definitions (includes definition of “District Judge”) |
✅ Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Who Appoints | Governor of the State |
| In Consultation With | High Court of the State |
| Eligibility (Direct) | 7 years of advocacy + Not in service + HC recommendation |
| Purpose | Ensure judicial independence and qualified judges in District Judiciary |
📌 Conclusion:
Article 233 is a cornerstone in preserving the independence, quality, and transparency of the judicial system at the district level. By involving the High Court in the appointment process, it shields appointments from executive overreach and ensures that judges are selected on merit and legal experience.
RELATED Blog
0 comments