The judges questioned why the judiciary should not be considered a “unified” institution with consistent service conditions. They stressed that disparities in salaries, pensions, and allowances among judicial officers hurt the judiciary’s ability to attract and retain competent talent.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court and the Union government are locked in a debate over the uniformity of salaries and pensions for judges. The Centre maintains that not all service conditions affect judicial independence, while the court argues it cannot ignore financial inequalities that harm the judiciary’s autonomy.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and AG Masih is hearing a writ petition filed by the All India Judges Association, which questions whether judges should be governed by the old pension scheme (OPS) or the 2003 national pension scheme (NPS), under which members of the district judiciary do not receive a fixed pension. The Court is considering the possibility of implementing a unified pension scheme for the judiciary nationwide.
Attorney General R Venkataramani stated, “Comparing the judiciary to legislators or other branches of government is ‘misconceived’.”
He explained that while financial stability for judges is crucial, not every issue related to service conditions directly impacts judicial independence.
“Supersession of judges might tinker with judicial independence, but linking security of service conditions to it is difficult to comprehend,” he argued.
He added that ensuring uniform salaries and pensions would require a “larger constitutional rearrangement,” involving multiple levels of government at both the Centre and states.
The Attorney General also highlighted the government’s challenge of balancing financial demands across sectors.
“If one section is granted salaries or pensions at an enhanced rate, the government will need to do the balancing exercise,” he said.
Referring to the court’s earlier remarks about freebies, Venkataramani noted,
“Governments seem to have money to provide ‘freebies’ to citizens who do not work, but a financial crunch is cited when paying salaries and pensions of judges.”
However, the Supreme Court bench was not convinced. The judges questioned why the judiciary should not be considered a “unified” institution with consistent service conditions. They stressed that disparities in salaries, pensions, and allowances among judicial officers hurt the judiciary’s ability to attract and retain competent talent.
“Unless you have competent and good judicial officers, you can’t have an independent judiciary. And this indispensably involves the element of service conditions,”
the bench remarked.
The court referred to the success of the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, which were approved in 2002. The First National Judicial Pay Commission’s recommendations improved service conditions for district judiciary officers, reduced corruption, and attracted candidates from diverse backgrounds.
“After the Shetty Commission, those from affluent classes also started joining the judiciary,” the court noted.
Criticizing the Centre’s reluctance to resolve the issue, the bench asked whether financial neglect could force the judiciary into inaction.
“Normally, we don’t enter into domains of the executive and legislature, but if the government neglects the judiciary completely and does not give any funds, should we tie our hands and not do anything?” the judges asked the AG.
The bench clarified it was not proposing specific pay increases, such as “Rs10 lakh to each judge” or “additional LTCs” (leave travel concessions). However, it emphasized that financial stability is an essential part of judicial independence.
“Mr Parameshwar’s submissions are only two: One, that since the judiciary is unitary, there has to be common service conditions. Two, to ensure the independence of the judiciary, financial security must be there,” the bench summed up.
The court also noted the Centre and state governments’ resistance to implementing the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s recommendations, citing financial burden. Despite previous directives, financial disparities persist.
Earlier observations on pensions:
This is not the first instance where the Supreme Court has raised concerns about the insufficient pensions of retired judges. In a hearing held in November, the court described it as “shocking” that some retired judges were receiving pensions ranging from as low as Rs 6,000 to Rs15,000.
A petitioner, a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court, disclosed that he was receiving Rs15,000 as his pension. He argued that his 13 years of judicial service in the district court had not been factored into his pension calculation.
The matter will continue to be heard on February 11.
Case Details: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA., W.P.(C) No. 643/2015
READ PREVIOUS HEARINGS
Supreme Court: “States have money for freebies, but claim financial crunch to pay judges’ salaries and pensions.”
[BREAKING] Judges Pension | “Pitiable That Retired HC Judges Getting Pension Rs 10K & Rs 15K”: Supreme Court
‘If Judges Are Getting Rs 6,000, It’s Shocking!’ Supreme Court Alarmed by Meagre Pension for Retired High Court Judges
