SC, govt spar on uniform judicial salaries, pensions
At the heart of the growing discord is the judiciary’s demand for financial stability as a cornerstone of judicial independence.
NEW DELHI The Supreme Court and the Union government are locked in a fierce tussle over the uniformity of salaries and pensions for judges, with the Centre asserting that not all service conditions impact judicial independence and the court insisting it cannot remain a passive spectator to financial inequities undermining the judiciary’s autonomy.
At the heart of the growing discord is the judiciary’s demand for financial stability as a cornerstone of judicial independence, pitted against the government’s argument for balancing competing priorities.
On Wednesday, a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and AG Masih underscored the critical need for financial security and uniform service conditions to maintain the judiciary’s independence and efficacy.
“For judges to act in an independent manner, there has to be social security, and one way of ensuring this is by guaranteeing financial stability,” the bench told attorney general R Venkataramani, who represented the Centre. It added that the judiciary, as a unified institution, must offer consistent service conditions across all states and Union territories.
The discussion was prompted by disparities in salaries and pensions among retired judges and judicial officers in different regions. Senior advocate K Parameshwar, who has been assisting the bench as amicus curiae, pointed out glaring anomalies, including pensions as low as ₹17,000 for some retired high court judges. He contrasted this with legislators, who enjoy pensions indexed to inflation even if they serve for just one year.
To this, AG Venkataramani argued that comparing the judiciary to legislators or other branches of government is “misconceived”. He contended that while financial stability for judges is essential, not all issues of service conditions directly impact judicial independence.
“Supersession of judges might tinker with judicial independence, but linking security of service conditions to it is difficult to comprehend,” contended Venkataramani, adding that ensuring uniform pay and pensions would necessitate a “larger constitutional rearrangement”, requiring deliberation at multiple levels of government at the Centre and states.
The attorney general further emphasised the government’s responsibility to balance 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,” said Venkataramani, also pointing to the court’s remarks about freebies during the Tuesday hearing. On Tuesday, the court commented that 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.
Unconvinced by the AG’s arguments, the bench questioned why the judiciary should not be treated as a “unified” institution with standardised service conditions as it added that disparities in salaries, pensions and allowances among judicial officers were undermining 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 judges also highlighted the success of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission (First National Judicial Pay Commission, approved by the court in 2002) which improved service conditions for district judiciary officers, leading to reduced corruption and attracting candidates from diverse backgrounds. “After the Shetty Commission, those from affluent classes also started joining the judiciary,” it noted.
Berating the Centre’s reluctance to address the issue, the court questioned 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.
While the bench clarified it was not suggesting specific pay increases, such as “ ₹10 lakh to each judge” or “additional LTCs” (leave travel concessions), it stressed the judiciary’s duty to ensure financial stability as 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. It will continue hearing the matter on February 11.
This week’s deliberations come against the backdrop of the court’s previous directives regarding the implementation of recommendations by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission and reporting compliance to it. Despite these orders, financial disparities persisted, with the Centre and state governments arguing that implementing the recommendations would impose an undue financial burden.
