Supreme Court Says States Cannot Reject Judges' Retirement Age Hike Over Financial Burden

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that state governments cannot oppose the proposal to raise the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years solely on the grounds of increased financial burden or differences in the retirement age of government employees.

Describing both arguments as "untenable", the apex court directed states that had objected to the proposal to review the matter independently and arrive at a fresh decision within two weeks.

Court rejects key objections

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan passed the order while hearing the long-pending case filed by the All India Judges Association regarding the retirement age of members of the district judiciary.

The court noted that retaining experienced judges would help avoid immediate vacancies and reduce the expenditure associated with recruitment, training and induction of new officers. It observed that seasoned judicial officers constitute an important institutional asset and that extending their service could prove more economical than replacing them.

Judiciary a distinct class

The bench also rejected the argument that the retirement age of judicial officers should remain in line with that of state government employees. It emphasised that members of the judiciary form a separate and distinct class and cannot be equated with government servants.

The court further clarified that state governments should not refrain from approving the proposal merely because the concerned High Courts have expressed reservations. Their views, it said, would be considered at an appropriate stage.