Case title:
All India Judges Association vs Union of India
Date of Order:
19 May 2023
Bench:
S Narasimha, Ramasubramanian, D Chandrachud
Parties:
Petitioners - All India Judges Association
Respondents- Union of India
SUBJECT
The All India Judges Association (AIJA) is a national, non-political, non-profit organization. It is comprised of judges from all levels of India's judiciary system, including the Supreme Court, High Courts, and District Courts. The AIJA was created to unify the judiciary and promote justice for all. The AIJA's mission is to ensure the independence of the judiciary and the fair and impartial administration of justice in India. It seeks to protect citizens' rights and create an environment for justice to prevail. Additionally, the AIJA strives to promote respect for the judiciary and ensure judges are held to the highest standards of ethical conduct.
OVERVIEW
- The District Judiciary is the backbone of the judicial system. To ensure the independence of the judicial officers serving in the District Judiciary, it is imperative to ensure their financial security and economic independence.
- The District Judiciary was revised by this Court, at the instance of the All India Judges Association, and the revised pay scales were effective from 01.01.2006.
- The present writ petition has been filed calling for the court's intervention to update/upgrade the service conditions of judicial officers.
- Following the order of the Hon’ble court dated 09.05.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 643/2015, the Second National Judicial Pay Commission was appointed.
- The report of this commission however brought to light the dire need for interim relief to be granted to judicial officers as their pay had not been increased for more than 10 years.
- The court acknowledged the report and appointed amici curiae for assistance.
ISSUE RAISED
- The All India Judges Association has requested this Court to intervene and update/upgrade judicial officers' service conditions.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- Senior Advocate Gourab represented the All India Judges Association.
- The counsel relied on the case of Director, KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani (2023) SCC Online SC 401 to defend the recommendation of the Commission on the increase of the last increment in pension.
- The counsel pointed out that district judges retire earlier than High Court and Supreme Court judges. Therefore, they must be entitled to retirement benefits at a young age.
- Senior Advocate V Giri represented the All India Retired Judges Association.
- The counsel urged the necessity for urgent implementation of the SNJPC Report, especially in respect of pensions for retired officers.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel for respondents first submitted that the States lack sufficient financial resources to meet the pay increase suggested by the SNJPC.
- When it comes to the recommendation for an increment to be accrued for pension for a retired judicial officer, the counsel further submitted that since the applicable Rules in their State do not allow such accruals for Government Employees, judicial officers cannot receive the same.
- The States also opposed the retirement gratuity as suggested by the SNJPC. In response, they argued they could not accept the recommendation since their State Rules provide a uniform rate for all cadres and services in the State.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court of India held that necessary amendments must be made to the Service Rules of Judicial Officers across all jurisdictions for all accepted recommendations.
- The court while analyzing the different Judicial Pay Commissions, formulated five principles that form the underpinning of judicial pay, pension, and allowances. They include Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions, Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political Executive, Independence of the District Judiciary as Part of the Basic Structure, Judicial Independence and Access to Justice to Ensure Implementation of Part III of the Constitution, and Equivalence of Judicial Functions of District Judiciary and Higher Judiciary.
- In accordance with the revised pension rates approved, the court clarified that they will be effective from 01.07.2023.
- The court ruled that the Commission's recommendations to grant the pension increment are fully reasonable and in light of the acceptance of the recommendation, pension calculations must include the increment notionally.
- Reliance was placed on the case of Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India [(2021) SCC Online All 1090] to substantiate the above point.
- The recommendation of the commission suggesting that the process of grant of ACP should be initiated 3 months in advance from the date on which the judicial officers will complete 5/10 years was found to be reasonable by the court.
- The bench consisting of justices S Narasimha, Ramasubramanian, and D Chandrachud observed that delays from the administrative side have the effect of ruining the career of a judicial officer. Therefore, it must be avoided. It was further stated that the Commission's suggestions will bring about much-needed efficiency and a standard operating procedure for the grant of ACP promptly.
CONCLUSION
The Service Rules of the Judicial Officers of India are established to ensure that all judicial officers across the country are held to the same standards and expectations of conduct. The court in this case analyzed and approved many recommendations suggested for the benefit of judicial officers by the SNJPC. The court directed the High Courts and the competent authorities to bring the rules in conformity with the recommendations accepted by the court within 3 months. The High Courts, the States, and the Union were further directed to place compliance affidavits on record within four months.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
