In the matter of Ravi Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2025 observed that appointments to the post of district judge must respect both modes of recruitment: promotion from the judicial service and direct recruitment from advocates or pleaders. A Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh held that the Constitution deliberately leaves the eligibility of persons in the judicial service open to the discretion of the High Court and Governor, reflecting the principles of independence of the judiciary and separation of powers.

The Bench emphasized that the consultation of the High Court under Articles 233 and 234 is an essential constitutional safeguard, ensuring that legislative or executive interference does not compromise judicial independence. The Court clarified that persons in the judicial service are fully entitled to compete for vacancies intended for direct recruitment, and any interpretation creating a bar in their favour would violate Article 14 of the Constitution by effectively reserving posts for advocates or pleaders.

Relying on precedents including State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, and Registrar (Admn.), High Court of Orissa v. Sisir Kanta Satapathy, the Court reaffirmed that maintaining and enhancing the quality of the subordinate judiciary at the foundational level is vital for public confidence, reducing pendency, and strengthening the judicial structure. The Bench concluded that Articles 233, 233-A, 234, and 235 together constitute a complete constitutional code for recruitment, appointment, and control of the district judiciary, insulating it from external interference.

Takeaway: The Supreme Court reinforced that independence of the judiciary is a core constitutional principle; both judicial officers and advocates are eligible for appointment as district judges, and the High Court’s consultation is an indispensable safeguard against executive or legislative intrusion, ensuring meritocracy and quality in the subordinate judiciary.