SUPREME COURT URGES STATES AND UTS TO EXAMINE PROPOSAL FOR INCREASING JUDICIAL OFFICERS’ RETIREMENT AGE TO 61 YEARS:

The Supreme Court has directed all State Governments and Union Territories to consider increasing the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 years to 61 years, subject to consultation with their respective High Courts. The direction was issued by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana while hearing a petition seeking a uniform enhancement of the retirement age of district judiciary officers from 60 years to 62 years across the country.

The Court passed an interim arrangement whereby States and Union Territories that agree to the proposal, after consultation with their jurisdictional High Courts, may permit judicial officers to continue in service until they attain the age of 61 years. However, the Court clarified that such extension would remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings and would not determine or prejudice the larger legal issue concerning whether the retirement age of district judicial officers should be uniformly increased to 62 years throughout India.

The bench directed all State Governments and Union Territories to place their respective positions on record within two weeks after consulting the concerned High Courts. The jurisdictional High Courts were also directed to submit their views within the same period. The Court further clarified that States and High Courts that have already expressed their agreement with the proposed enhancement need not file detailed responses and may instead submit a brief statement indicating their concurrence with the proposal.

The interim direction is set to take effect from April 1, 2026. The Court emphasized that the question of law regarding the permanent enhancement of the retirement age would be examined independently, regardless of the positions adopted by individual States or High Courts. The matter before the Court primarily concerns whether district judicial officers across the country should receive a uniform retirement age of 62 years, similar to the retirement age applicable to High Court judges.

The issue has emerged from earlier judicial consideration of recommendations made by the Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty Commission, which had suggested increasing the retirement age of district judges to 62 years. However, in 2002, the Supreme Court had declined to accept the recommendation. Since then, certain States have independently moved towards enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers. During the present proceedings, the Court was informed that States such as Telangana and Madhya Pradesh had taken steps in this direction. The Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had also passed a resolution recommending an increase in the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 years to 62 years.

At the same time, certain High Courts, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court, have expressed reservations regarding the proposal, citing that the retirement age of government employees in their respective States remains 60 years or below. Due to these differing positions among States and High Courts, the Supreme Court considered it necessary to establish an interim mechanism until the larger constitutional and legal questions are finally decided.

The present proceedings follow an earlier interim order passed by a bench headed by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, wherein the retirement age of judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh was increased from 60 years to 61 years. The Court had observed that when a State Government itself was willing to extend the benefit, there was no apparent justification for denying such relief to judicial officers. It had further noted that judicial officers and other State government employees receive their salaries from the same public exchequer, particularly when the retirement age of other State employees in certain jurisdictions had already been increased to 62 years.