The Supreme Court has expressed satisfaction over 14 states agreeing to increase the retirement age of district judicial officers from 60 to 62 years, while declining to urgently hear separate petitions filed by judges approaching retirement or those who have recently retired.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said the matter was being addressed through discussions between the Supreme Court and state governments rather than through individual petitions.
Chief Justice Surya Kant informed the court that 14 states had so far agreed to the proposed increase and expressed hope that the remaining states would follow.
The bench clarified that although the main petition had been listed for hearing, it was not inclined to entertain separate requests by judicial officers seeking immediate relief.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar had sought urgent listing of the matter, pointing out that judicial officers were retiring every day after reaching the age of 60.
Supreme Court’s Earlier Directions to States
On September 4, the Supreme Court directed states to increase the retirement age of district judicial officers from 60 to 62 years.
The Court issued specific directions concerning seven states that had consented to the proposal: Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.
Judicial officers in these states who retired on or after March 31, 2026, were to be given an opportunity to rejoin judicial service, provided they had not taken up subsequent employment.
The Court also directed these states to amend their judicial service rules, preferably within two months, to increase the retirement age to 62 years.
However, the extension would remain subject to the concerned High Court assessing the suitability and performance of each judicial officer.
Until the necessary amendments were introduced, judicial officers in these seven states who had reached 60 years of age would be allowed to continue serving until 62, subject to the same assessment.
Other States Asked to Reconsider Their Position
The Supreme Court had also directed several other states and Union Territories to reconsider their decisions concerning the retirement age of judicial officers.
These included Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, and Puducherry.
During earlier proceedings, the bench had rejected financial burden as a justification for opposing the proposed increase and asked state governments to reconsider their position.
Background of the Retirement Age Dispute
The proceedings arise from a petition seeking a uniform retirement age of 62 years for district judicial officers throughout the country.
Currently, Supreme Court judges retire at 65 years, while High Court judges retire at 62.
The issue has remained under consideration since the Supreme Court’s 2002 judgment declining to accept the recommendation of the Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty Commission, which had proposed increasing the retirement age of district judges to 62 years.
Following that decision, certain states, including Telangana and Madhya Pradesh, have taken steps towards extending the retirement age of judicial officers.
The Supreme Court is continuing to consider the issue of bringing uniformity to the retirement age of district judiciary officers across the country.
