Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court was informed today that most High Courts are in favour of enhancing the retirement age of district judges to 61/62 years, while several States and Union Territories are either opposing the move or are yet to take a final decision on it.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the All India Judges Association case, in which the Court had recently directed all States/UTs to consider enhancing the retirement age of district judges to 61/62 years after consulting their respective High Courts.

During today's hearing, the Court orally observed that the services of government employees and judicial officers cannot be equated, as judicial officers enter service at a substantially more advanced age.

The Court said that there is a gap of atleast 3-4 years in the age of entry into the two fields, therefore a difference of 2 years in the retirement age of judicial officers and government servants is completely justified. 

The Court further opined that States/UTs must resist the opposition statedly being experienced on the issue of enhancement of district judges' retirement age, as while a government employee can enter their service at around 18 years of age and retire at around 60 years, a person would atleast be 27-28 years old when they enter judicial service (minimum 35 years old in case of direct recruitment as ADJ). A judicial officer must therefore be compensated in terms of higher retirement age, the Court opined. 

The Court also did not find merit in the ground that enhancement of the retirement age of district judges would create financial burden. It observed that the States/UTs, by keeping the district judges in service for a couple more years, would be able to defer payment of retiral benefits, pension etc. to them, which would particularly be a "bonanza" for revenue-deficit states/UTs. 

While the Court was informed that most of the High Courts are in agreement with the enhancement of the retirement age, the stance of the States/UTs was conveyed thus- 

States/UTs opposed to enhancement: Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Uttarakhand, UP and Odisha;

States/UTs still considering enhancement: Assam (agreeable subject to distinguishing of 4.5 lakh government employees), Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Tripura, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh;

States/UTs acceptable to enhancement: Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Sikkim and Puducherry (basic approval for 61, will consider 62).

During the hearing, the CJI impressed upon the non-agreeable states/UTs to come back with a positive response. He commented, "If you go into the history of judicial services, the age of retirement of judicial officers has always been higher than government servants in the past. In between there are some parity grounds...age of retirement of government employees was also enhanced. But if we go by historical facts, the age of retirement of judicial officers has always been higher. Supreme Court judgement is very clear on this point. Judicial services not comparable with government services...None of the reasons given have any legal or factual backup."

The CJI pointed out that in the previous order, the Court had rejected the argument of financial burden and difference in retirement age of government employees, which were raised by the States. The CJI asked the States to consider the observations in the previous order and take a decision.

ASG SD Sanjay, for Bihar, explained that the state is considering the issue from a larger perspective, because once it takes a decision, young people may not get new jobs. "these days of protests and demonstrations everywhere...the moment they come up into arms, that creates further law and order problem in the state. So the state is taking some time to consider" he said. 

At one point, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar (Amicus) claimed that as per a query response in Rajya Sabha, in December 2025, there were 1744 vacancies of district judge posts across India. He also flagged the issues arising from retired district judges coming back after new judges have taken over their vacant posts. In this regard, CJI Kant underlined challenges posed by some district judges taking up other assignments after retirement (like in Tribunals). "We will try to find some via media" he said.

The matter has been posted after 2 weeks, with an expectation that the states/UTs remaining to accept the enhancement would come back with a positive response. 

Appearance: Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Siddharth Bhatnagar, ASG SD Sanjay, Advocate Generals of States/UTs 

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

Tags: