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

The opposition of the States/UTs was stated to be rooted in 3 issues - (i) additional burden on State exchequer (ii) "heartburn" among other employees of the State/UT, and (iii) effect on legitimate aspirations of young entrants in judicial service. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with 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 observed. 

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. 

"The concern of the States regarding an enhanced financial burden is, in our view, clearly misconceived. Were members of the judicial cadre to superannuate at the age of 60 instead of 62, the State would stand burdened with the responsibility of paying the post-retiral dues of such superannuated officers, in addition to the salary of those newly appointed in their place. On the contrary, if experienced members of the judicial cadre are permitted to continue in service till the age of 62, the additional burden of bearing such post-retiral dues would stand correspondingly postponed", the Court observed. 

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: Assam, Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Uttarakhand, UP;

States/UTs considering enhancement: Goa, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Tripura, Delhi, Puducherry, Odisha, Telangana, Arunachal Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh;

States/UTs acceptable to enhancement: Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Sikkim. 

In the order, the Court noted Senior Advocate Vikas Singh's argument that while the sanctioned strength of judicial service in most states/UTs has increased, the recruitment drives have not resulted in adequate fulfilment. As such, there is a gap between the sanctioned and the working strengths of courts. It further recorded the senior counsel's submission that similar crisis is apparent in other professional cadres, but in those cases, the States/UTs have responded by enhancing the age of superannuation. The Court opined that identical reasoning applies to judicial service, justifying an increase in the age of superannuation of judges. 

"[T]he crying need of the hour is to ensure that the attrition of the experience judicial talent be arrested so that the gap between the sanctioned and the working strength in the judicial service is reduced, and access to justice does not remain a mere chimera due to unfilled posts. It is with this spirit that we request the High Courts and States to reconsider the issue with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation in the district judiciary whose conditions of service are to be governed by rules frame on their recommendation."

Interestingly, the Court also welcomed some High Courts' suggestion for assessment of judicial work as a pre-condition (for retaining superannuating judicial officers), so that "deadwood can be removed" and only competent officers of proven integrity are permitted to continue. "This suggestion is most welcome as it would balance the preservation of experienced judicial officers, while removing the clog of deadwood, blocking the entrance of young blood invigorating the system."

The Court ordered the States/UTs which were acceptable to the age enhancement to amend their service rules, subject to suitably assessment of the concerned judicial officer, by the High Court, on their reaching age of 60. It clarified that pending such amendment, no judicial officer who has attained the age of 60 in such state/UT shall superannuate, until they reach the age of 62, subject to the suitability assessment. Further, judicial officers in such State/UT, who have superannuated on or after 31.03.2026 shall be given an option to re-join if they have not taken up employment elsewhere. If they exercise such option, they shall be reappointed with all consequential benefits, subject to suitability assessment and performance by High Court, and surrender of any post-retiral benefits. 

Courtroom Exchange

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 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. "[T]hese 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. 

Notably, the Amicus also pointed out that the age of superannuation of judicial officers was last enhanced in 1992. 

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, AG R Venkataramani (for Rajasthan), 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

Click Here To Read/Download Order