The Supreme Court clarified which State must pay medical expenses for retired High Court judges. States failing to comply face contempt action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India gave more clarity on its earlier order regarding who should pay for medical expenses given to retired High Court judges.
A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that when a judge is transferred from one High Court to another, the State where the High Court is located from which the judge retires will have to bear the medical reimbursement expenses.
ALSO READ: “District Judges Receive a Mere Rs 15,000 as Pension”: CJI Urges Centre to Examine
In cases where a judge serves in the same High Court for their entire career, the State where the High Court is located where the judge was first appointed will be responsible for the medical benefits.
The Supreme Court clearly said in its April 15 order,
“When we say the concerned State Government, it will be the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated in which the retired judge was firstly appointed or the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated from which the learned judge has retired.”
This clarification was made in relation to paragraph 9 of the Court’s earlier order dated February 18, 2025, where it had directed that all medical reimbursements should be made by the “concerned State Government.”
In the February order, the Court had also stated,
“When we say the concerned State Governments, it will be the State Government where the seat of the High Court is situated from which the learned judge has retired. Obviously, the concerned State Government shall reimburse even if the treatment is taken in a hospital outside that State.”
On April 15, the Supreme Court also strongly warned that if any States or Union Territories fail to follow these orders and do not give uniform medical benefits to retired High Court judges, their spouses, and dependents, it will take strict action.
The Court said,
“We are putting the State to the notice that if we find non-compliance, action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981 will be initiated.”
The Court directed all States to file fresh compliance affidavits within one week. These affidavits should show in detail how the States have implemented the Court’s earlier orders related to medical reimbursements, cashless treatment, and other facilities for retired judges.
The matter will now be heard again on April 29 at 2 PM.
The case being heard by the Supreme Court is a contempt petition filed by retired Justice VS Dave, who is the President of the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This petition has been pending since 2015 because several States have not implemented uniform post-retirement medical facilities for judges properly.
In the latest order, the Supreme Court observed that although many States had filed affidavits saying they had complied, they had not fully implemented the uniform system according to the Court’s earlier important orders given in October 2018, April 2019, and February 2025.
These earlier orders had clearly directed that:
- Retired judges must receive medical benefits equal to sitting judges;
- Medical treatment taken at private hospitals should be reimbursed without the need for State government permission beforehand;
- The Registrar General of the High Court should have the authority to approve reimbursements;
- Reimbursements must be given even if the retired judge takes treatment outside the State; and
- A proper cashless treatment facility must be made available.
The Supreme Court has now ordered that all States must submit their updated compliance affidavits to the Amicus Curiae. The Amicus Curiae has been asked to prepare a compliance chart showing how much each State has implemented the Court’s orders.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Deems Rs 19-20k Pension for Retired District Judges Inadequate
Earlier, the Court had also criticised some States, including Madhya Pradesh, for taking too much time to implement the cashless facility. The Court had ordered that immediate action must be taken by the States to follow the Court’s directions properly.
CASE TITLE:
Justice VS Dave President, Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts vs. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Judges Pension
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
