Overview
- A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai concluded three days of hearings and reserved judgment on interpreting Article 233(2).
- The Court is considering if prior advocacy and subsequent judicial service can be aggregated to meet the seven-year requirement and when eligibility must be assessed.
- Petitioners urged an integrated-judiciary approach, while respondents relied on Dheeraj Mor and argued the provision applies only to practising advocates with continuous practice.
- Data cited in court showed 25,870 sanctioned district-judiciary posts nationwide with about 4,789 vacancies, underscoring recruitment stakes.
- In a separate order, the Supreme Court declined to disturb Telangana’s rule requiring seven years of practice in the state and permitted limited special appointments for 2023 and 2024 qualifiers without creating precedent.