On Friday(27th Sept),The Supreme Court of India emphasized that retired high court judges heading tribunals must receive appropriate salaries and benefits to maintain their dignity. The bench, led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, urged state governments to ensure fair compensation or consider appointing individuals from other professions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Friday(27th Sept), the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of ensuring that retired high court judges, appointed to head tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, receive appropriate salaries and benefits. This stance was underlined by the court’s insistence on preserving the dignity of these former judges, who once held esteemed constitutional positions.
A bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, made it clear that state governments should frame the terms of appointment for retired judges in a way that reflects the stature they held during their judicial careers. Alternatively, the bench suggested that states should amend the relevant legislation to allow for the appointment of individuals from other professional fields to such roles if the states are unwilling to offer fair compensation.
The bench unequivocally highlighted the value of the retired judges, emphasizing that their worth cannot be solely measured by the volume of cases they handle while serving in tribunals.
“The concern isn’t about whether they manage 500 or 5,000 cases; it’s the dignity of their office that matters most. Retired high court judges carry a significant level of prestige. It’s not about the volume of work but about maintaining the dignity and respect associated with their roles. If states cannot recognize this, they should refrain from appointing retired judges.”
-remarked the bench.
The Supreme Court made these remarks while hearing an appeal by the state of Haryana, which sought to challenge a ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in December 2023. The high court had directed the Haryana government to treat Justice SD Anand, a retired high court judge, on par with chairpersons of the Haryana Tax Tribunal and Haryana Backward Classes Commission, thus entitling him to the same salary and perks. Justice Anand, who was appointed president of the appellate authority of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) in April 2017, had to endure a long wait of 22 months for the state to finalize the terms of his appointment. This delay prompted him to seek legal intervention.
In February 2022, a single-judge bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court pulled up the Haryana government for its inaction and ordered that Justice Anand be paid his dues, in line with similar positions. When the state appealed the ruling, a division bench dismissed the appeal in December 2023, reiterating the necessity for parity in pay and perks for retired high court judges in such posts.
The division bench underscored the statutory nature of the president of the appellate authority, affirming that retired judges appointed to such posts must receive the same salary and benefits as sitting judges. In dismissing the state’s appeal, the court remarked that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the previous decision, which it described as “well-reasoned.”
“The post of president of the appellate authority was a statutory position, and retired high court judges appointed to such posts must receive the same salary and perks as sitting judges,”
-the court noted in its ruling, adding that the decision to dismiss the appeal was inevitable, given the clear legal mandate.
While rejecting Haryana’s appeal, the Supreme Court took into consideration that the state had since notified the terms and conditions for the post in question. The court clarified that although Justice Anand was entitled to his dues, this particular case would not set a binding precedent for future disputes involving retired judges.
This ruling is significant in maintaining the respect and dignity associated with the office of retired judges, even as they transition into quasi-judicial roles.
India’s legal framework has long recognized the value of judicial expertise in tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies. Various laws explicitly mandate the appointment of serving or retired judges from high courts or the Supreme Court to head these bodies. This ensures that judicial rigor, independence, and impartiality are preserved, particularly in handling sensitive and complex matters.
A prime example of this judicial involvement is the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which was established under the NGT Act of 2010. The act stipulates that the chairperson must be a retired Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a high court. Similarly, tribunals like the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the National Companies Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and the Armed Forces Tribunal are all required to have former high court or Supreme Court judges as their chairpersons.
These legislative mandates are designed to ensure not just the credibility of such tribunals but also to align their decisions with established principles of justice and the Constitution. The presence of retired judges on these bodies helps in maintaining public trust in the integrity and fairness of these quasi-judicial institutions. The legislative mandates are seemingly designed not only to lend credibility to these tribunals but also to ensure that their decisions are in line with established principles of justice and the Constitution.
Moreover, by appointing retired judges to lead tribunals, the judiciary brings decades of experience, legal knowledge, and a deep understanding of the Constitution to these specialized bodies. This approach is aimed at ensuring that justice is served in a manner that is both efficient and consistent with the highest standards of judicial integrity.
