On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that state governments cannot object to raising the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years merely because it would increase financial liabilities or create a disparity with the retirement age of other government employees.
Calling both arguments "untenable," the apex court instructed the states that had opposed the proposal to conduct an independent review of the issue and reach a new decision within two weeks.
Court rejects key objections
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan issued the order while hearing a long-pending petition by the All India Judges Association concerning the retirement age of district judiciary members.
The court observed that keeping experienced judges in service would help prevent sudden vacancies and lower the costs linked to recruiting, training, and inducting new officers. It emphasized that veteran judicial officers are a key institutional resource and that prolonging their tenure may be more cost-effective than appointing replacements.
Judiciary a distinct class
The bench further dismissed the contention that the retirement age of judicial officers must match that of state government employees. It underscored that members of the judiciary constitute a separate and distinct category and cannot be treated on par with government servants.
The court additionally made it clear that state governments must not withhold approval of the proposal solely because the respective High Courts have raised objections. It stated that those views would be taken into account at a suitable stage.
