Article 232 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Here is a comprehensive explanation of Article 232 of the Constitution of India along with key case law:
🇮🇳 Article 232 – Officers of High Courts to be Eligible for Appointment as District Judges
🔹 Text of Article 232:
(1) The Governor may, by rules, regulate the recruitment of persons to the judicial service of the State who are not already serving therein.
(2) For the purposes of this Chapter:
the judicial service of a State does not include any post superior in rank to that of district judge;
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:
✅ Key Provisions:
| Clause | Provision |
|---|---|
| (1) | Governor can make rules for recruitment of persons to the State judicial service. |
| (2) | Defines “judicial service” and eligibility criteria for District Judge appointments. |
⚖️ Important Points from Article 232:
This article works in coordination with Article 233, which governs the appointment of district judges.
A person must have 7 years' experience as an advocate/pleader to be eligible for direct recruitment as a district judge.
Only the Governor can make rules regarding recruitment, but the High Court’s recommendation is mandatory.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 232:
🔹 Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966)
Citation: AIR 1966 SC 1987
Key Point:
The Governor must consult the High Court while framing rules under Article 232.
Appointments made without effective consultation with the High Court are invalid.
🔹 Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (1983)
Citation: AIR 1983 SC 308
Held:
The eligibility of 7 years of practice as an advocate is mandatory.
This requirement under Article 232(2) must be strictly followed for direct recruitment as District Judges.
🔹 Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik (2013)
Citation: (2013) 5 SCC 277
Facts: Concerned promotion and recruitment to higher judicial services.
Held:
Clarified that rules under Article 232 must align with Articles 233–236 (Chapter VI of Part VI).
Upheld the distinction between direct recruits (advocates) and promotees from judicial services.
🔹 All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1993)
Citation: (1993) 4 SCC 288
Held:
Stressed on uniformity and transparency in recruitment and service conditions across states.
Suggested centralized recruitment tests for judicial officers via High Courts or a Judicial Services Commission.
📌 Summary Table:
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Article | 232 |
| Applies To | Recruitment to State Judicial Services (below High Court) |
| Power to Frame Rules | Governor of the State |
| Eligibility for District Judge | Minimum 7 years practice as Advocate or Pleader |
| Role of High Court | Must recommend candidates; essential for constitutional validity |
| Key Principle | Ensures judicial independence and proper qualifications in recruitment |
🧠 Conclusion:
Article 232 plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality and independence of the State judicial services by laying down minimum eligibility criteria and emphasizing the High Court’s supervisory role. The judiciary has consistently interpreted this Article to ensure fair and constitutionally compliant recruitment practices.
RELATED Blog
0 comments