States can't cite financial burden to oppose higher retirement age for judges: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that State governments cannot cite financial burdens to oppose raising the retirement age of judicial officers, terming such concerns to be misconceived.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana has directed various States to urgently reconsider their earlier opposition to increasing the retirement age.

"The reasons assigned by the different State governments for declining to enhance the age of retirement of judicial officers on the ground of additional financial burden appear to be misconceived," the Court said.

The Court has all States to take an independent and pragmatic decision on enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers, preferably within two weeks, irrespective of the retirement age applicable to other government employees.

The Court also noted that it had already dealt extensively with the financial implications of the issue in a 2024 ruing. It pointed out that recruiting new judicial officers to fill vacancies that arise due to retirement would also entail additional expenses.

"We have no reason to doubt that the continuation of experienced and seasoned judicial officers would entail a lesser financial liability than what the State would incur upon their retirement," the Court added.

At the same time, the Court said the issue should preferably be resolved through consensus. It impressed upon all State governments to revisit the question of enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers.

The Court clarified that they need not refrain from taking a positive decision merely because the jurisdictional High Courts may have expressed reservations.

The Court emphasised that State governments must arrive at their own independent decision after considering the relevant factors. It also directed High Courts to deliberate on the issue in their Full Court meetings and communicate their views to the respective State governments.

The Bench said the exercise should be completed on an urgent basis, preferably within two weeks. It further directed that if a State decides to enhance the retirement age, the benefit must also be extended to judicial officers who retire during the intervening period.

[Read Live Coverage]