The Maharashtra State Judges Association has asked the Supreme Court to direct the Centre to constitute a National Judicial Pay Commission, and has challenged the inclusion of subordinate judicial officers in the Union Territories within the mandate of the 8th Central Pay Commission. The Court has issued notice and has expressed no view on the merits.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice on a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Judges Association seeking a direction to the Union Government to constitute a National Judicial Pay Commission to review the pay, allowances and service conditions of judges across the country, and challenging the inclusion of judicial officers of the subordinate courts in the Union Territories within the terms of reference of the 8th Central Pay Commission [Maharashtra State Judges Association v. Union of India and Others].
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 for hearing on October 14, 2026.
The background
The order passed on September 2, 2026 runs to a single line:
“Issue notice, returnable on 14.10.2026.”
At this stage the Court has not examined any of the contentions raised. The Union Government, the State Governments and the Union Territory administrations are yet to file their responses, and everything set out below is the case as pleaded by the petitioner Association. None of it has been tested or accepted.
What the petition seeks
According to the petition, the Association has sought a direction to the Union Government to immediately constitute a National Judicial Pay Commission to review and recommend the pay, allowances, perquisites, service conditions, pension and post-retirement benefits of judges of the Supreme Court, of all 25 High Courts, and of the District and subordinate courts across the States and Union Territories.
The plea asks that such a Commission be required to submit its report within 18 months of being constituted, and that the Union and the State Governments be directed to implement its recommendations within three months of submission. It further seeks a system under which a fresh Commission is constituted every ten years, with judicial pay adjusted in the intervening period in line with revisions in Dearness Allowance applicable to Central Government employees.
On what the proposed Commission should examine, the petition lists national uniformity in pay scales for the higher and subordinate judiciary across States, a rational differential between the subordinate judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and facilities relating to housing, medical care, transport, communication and security. It also seeks consideration of post-retirement benefits and restrictions, leave entitlements and welfare measures, international practice in judicial compensation, and the relationship between remuneration and the ability to attract talent to the Bench.
The Association has additionally sought a Grievance Redressal Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge within three months of the Commission reporting, along with a Grievance Redressal Cell in the Supreme Court Registry to function as its Secretariat. As an interim measure, it 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.
The challenge to the 8th Pay Commission’s terms of reference
The second limb of the petition challenges Clause 2(a)(ix) of the Union Government’s resolution dated November 3, 2025 constituting the 8th Central Pay Commission, which is chaired by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. That clause empowers the Commission to examine and recommend changes in the emoluments of:
“Judicial officers of the subordinate courts in the Union Territories.”
The Association contends that bringing judicial officers within the remit of a Central Pay Commission runs contrary to the framework developed by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association line of cases, and has sought a declaration that the clause is unconstitutional and illegal. It has consequently asked for the reference to be withdrawn, for the withdrawal to be communicated to the Chairperson of the Commission, and for a direction that the Commission not examine or make recommendations on the pay or service conditions of judicial officers. In the alternative, the petition seeks a direction that the pay and service conditions of judicial officers in subordinate courts across India be determined exclusively by an independent National Judicial Pay Commission.
A caveat the resolution itself carries
On the other side of the ledger, the November 2025 resolution does not leave judicial officers wholly to the ordinary logic of a Central Pay Commission. The terms of reference carry an express note in respect of judicial officers:
“In respect of judicial officers, the Commission shall adhere to the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in its Judgement dated 24th August, 1993 in All India Judges’ Association and Others V/s Union of India and Others, viz. that there shall be no link between service conditions of judges and administrative executive and that the service conditions of judges have to meet the special needs of the judiciary.”
Whether that note answers the Association’s objection, or whether the objection goes to the choice of forum rather than to the principle the forum has been told to apply, is precisely the question the Court will have to consider. The Union Government has not yet placed its position on record.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Increases Madhya Pradesh Judicial Officers’ Retirement Age to 61
The All India Judges Association cases
The line of authority the petition invokes begins with the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision, in which the Court observed 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, and emphasised the need for an independent Commission dealing exclusively with judicial service conditions. The Court directed that judicial officers should have a separate pay structure.
Acting on those directions, the Centre constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission under Justice K.J. Shetty on March 21, 1996, and the reference to the Fifth Central Pay Commission for fixation of judicial officers’ pay was deleted in October 1996.
The specific question of judicial officers in the Union Territories arose 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.
Why the matter matters
Judicial pay in India has never been settled by a single standing mechanism. It has instead been fixed through periodic, one-off commissions constituted largely in response to litigation, with long gaps in between and implementation left to individual State Governments. The result is a structure that varies across States and tends to be revised only when the courts are moved. A petition asking for a decennial commission, with fixed timelines for reporting and implementation, is aimed at that ad hoc quality rather than at any particular figure.
The Union Territories point is narrower but constitutionally sharper, because it asks who decides rather than how much. Since the Centre bears the expenditure for the subordinate judiciary in the Union Territories, there is an administrative logic to folding those officers into the same exercise that covers other centrally funded establishments. Against that sits the separation of powers reasoning in the All India Judges Association cases, which treats the identity of the body determining judicial pay as itself bearing on judicial independence. The presence of the 1993 caveat within the terms of reference means the Court may have to decide whether that concern is met by instructing a Central Pay Commission to apply the correct principle, or whether it requires a separate body altogether.
There is a practical dimension as well. Vacancies in the district judiciary have been a recurring subject before the Supreme Court, and the Association’s framing places compensation within that discussion rather than treating it as a standalone service grievance. With notice issued, the respondents will have the opportunity to respond before the matter is taken up in October. The 8th Central Pay Commission is meanwhile expected to submit its recommendations within 18 months of its constitution, which places its work and this petition on overlapping timelines.
Case Title: Maharashtra State Judges Association v. Union of India and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 650 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 2, 2026 | Next Listed: October 14, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate B.H. Marlapalle with Advocate-on-Record Dilip Annasaheb Taur and Advocate Amol V. Deshmukh for the petitioner. No appearance was recorded for the respondents.