Supreme Court Seeks Response Of Centre, States On Plea Seeking National Judicial Pay Commission For Judges

A plea has been filed by the Maharashtra State Judges Association before the Supreme Court seeking constitution of a National Judicial Pay Commission (NJPC) to review the pay and service conditions of judges across the country.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice in the writ petition and posted the matter on October 14, 2026. 

The petition has been filed by Maharashtra State Judges Association through Advocate-on-Record Dilip Annasaheb Taur. Senior Advocate B. H. Marlapalle, Taur and Advocate Amol V Deshmukh appeared for the petitioner before the Court.

The Association has sought a direction to the Union Government to immediately constitute an NJPC to comprehensively review and recommend the pay, allowances, perquisites, service conditions, pension, post-retirement benefits and other terms of service of Supreme Court judges, judges of all 25 High Courts, and judges of District and subordinate courts in all States and Union Territories.

The Association has also challenged the inclusion of subordinate judicial officers in Union Territories within the terms of reference of the 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC).

Clause 2(a)(ix) of the Union Government's November 3, 2025 resolution constituting the 8th CPC empowers the Commission to examine and recommend changes in the pay, allowances and other benefits of “judicial officers of the subordinate courts in the Union Territories.”

The Association contends that this is contrary to the Supreme Court's earlier directions on judicial pay in the 1993 and 2001 judgments and subsequent orders in the All-India Judges Association cases.

In the 1993 judgment, the Court said that the practice of entrusting the service conditions of the subordinate judiciary to the same Pay Commissions that dealt with other government services required reconsideration. It emphasised the need for an independent Commission exclusively for judicial service conditions.

The Court had directed that judicial officers should have a separate pay structure and that their pay should be specifically considered when Pay Commissions or Committees were constituted.

Subsequently, the Centre constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission under Justice K.J. Shetty on March 21, 1996, pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in the 1993 review judgment. The reference to the Fifth Central Pay Commission for fixation of judicial officers' pay was deleted on October 24, 1996.

The issue of judicial officers in Union Territories specifically arose before the Supreme Court in the 2002 All India Judges Association judgment. The Centre had evolved separate pay scales for the subordinate and higher judicial service in the Union Territories, including Delhi, on the basis of parity between the Executive and the Judiciary. The Supreme Court held that the Judiciary could not be equated with the Executive and must have its own pay structure.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has therefore challenged the Centre's decision to bring judicial officers in Union Territories within the 8th CPC's mandate amounts to subjecting judicial pay to the Central Pay Commission despite the separate framework developed through the All-India Judges Association proceedings.

It has sought a declaration that Clause 2(a)(ix) of the resolution is unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the Supreme Court's 1993 and 2001 judgments in the All-India Judges Association v. Union of India cases.

The petitioner has consequently sought withdrawal of the reference of subordinate judicial officers in Union Territories from the 8th CPC's terms of reference. It has also sought a direction to the Centre to communicate the withdrawal to the Chairperson of the 8th CPC and direct the Commission not to examine or make recommendations on the pay, allowances or service conditions of judicial officers.

In the alternative, the petitioner has sought a direction that the pay, allowances and service conditions of judicial officers in subordinate courts across India be determined exclusively by an independent NJPC under the existing NJPC framework or through the NJPC sought in the present petition.

The plea seeks a direction for the NJPC to submit its report and recommendations to the Centre within 18 months of its constitution. It has also sought a direction to the Union and State Governments to implement the recommendations within three months of the report being submitted.

The Association has further sought a system under which a fresh NJPC would be constituted every 10 years for periodic revision of judicial pay and service conditions. During the intervening period, it has sought adjustment of judicial pay in line with revisions in Dearness Allowance applicable to Central Government employees.

The petition seeks that the proposed NJPC examine national uniformity in pay scales for the higher and subordinate judiciary across States, a rational and constitutionally appropriate pay differential between the subordinate judiciary, High Courts and Supreme Court, and facilities relating to housing, medical care, transport, communication and security.

It also seeks consideration of post-retirement benefits, pension, gratuity and medical coverage, service conditions, leave entitlements and welfare measures, post-retirement restrictions and corresponding compensation, international best practices in judicial compensation, and judicial vacancies and the relationship between remuneration and the ability to attract talent to the Bench.

The Association has also sought constitution of a Grievance Redressal Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge within three months of submission of the NJPC report. The plea also seeks establishment of a Grievance Redressal Cell in the Supreme Court Registry to act as the Secretariat of the Committee.

As an interim measure, the Association has sought revision of the salaries of Supreme Court and High Court judges with effect from January 1, 2026, to coincide with the implementation of the 8th Central Pay Commission for Central Government employees.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Civil) No. 650/2026

Case Title – Maharashtra State Judges Association v. Union of India and Others