A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court clarified the eligibility conditions for direct recruitment of advocates to the post of District Judge, an issue that had caused confusion among High Courts, State Public Service Commissions and candidates. The Court held that this clarified interpretation would apply only prospectively, protecting appointments and selections already completed or underway under the earlier understanding.
The ruling rests on Article 233 (District Judge appointments and the seven-year advocate/pleader practice requirement), Article 234 (recruitment to the judicial service), and Article 235 (High Court control over district courts). The prospective-only application draws on Article 141, which makes Supreme Court law binding, allowing 'prospective overruling', and on Article 142, which permits orders for complete justice—together enabling the Court to correct the law for the future without disturbing past appointments made in good faith.
Exam takeaway: remember Articles 233, 234 and 235 as the constitutional scheme for subordinate judiciary recruitment, and Articles 141/142 as the basis for prospective overruling—a technique balancing legal certainty with fairness to those who relied on earlier settled positions.