Retaining experience on the Bench

The Supreme Court is taking action to address the growing backlog of cases and the attrition of experienced judges in the district judiciary. The court is pushing for a nationwide increase in the retirement age from 60 to 62 years. Currently, there are 5.18 crore pending cases and only 21,027 working judicial officers out of a sanctioned strength of 25,894. The judge-to-population ratio in the country is approximately 22 judges per million people.

Despite the urgent need for more judges, many State governments have either dismissed the proposal or are still considering it. The High Courts, which have administrative control over the district judiciary, generally support the idea. However, concerns about the financial burden, potential disaffection among other government employees, and the impact on career progression of younger judges have held some States back.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that judges are not just employees, but holders of a distinct public office. It has argued that retaining experienced judges is crucial for maintaining public faith in the judiciary and ensuring the effective administration of justice. The court has also noted that delaying retirement would result in additional costs associated with paying post-retirement benefits and training new recruits.

The Supreme Court has given States two weeks to respond to the proposal and submit compliance reports. Seven States - Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal - have agreed to amend their service rules to increase the retirement age to 62 years, provided that high courts assess suitability at age 60. The court has ordered that no judicial officer in these seven States who has reached 60 should be retired until age 62, pending the amendment.

For the remaining States, the court has suggested that they can allow judicial officers who retired on or after March 31, 2026, to rejoin service if they are not already employed elsewhere, with restoration of pay, seniority, and continuity, subject to suitability and surrender of post-retirement benefits. The court has welcomed the suggestion that extension beyond 60 years should be subject to a performance assessment to ensure that only competent officers remain in the judicial service.