Supreme Court – Daily Orders
All India Judges Association vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2026
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
ITEM NO.7+8+9+10 COURT NO.1 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ITEM 7
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 1022/1989
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 200712/2026 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 202355/2026 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 205248/2026 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 202996/2026 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 204835/2026 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 178357/2026 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 202829/2026 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 202370/2026 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 214282/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 214280/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 200433/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 202352/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 202998/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 184071/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 214348/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 202999/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 202350/2026 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 200715/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 202366/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 203502/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 200431/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 202992/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 178214/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 201702/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 204831/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 200979/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 204020/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 202368/2026 - MODIFICATION
IA No. 202241/2026 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER
IA No. 204833/2026 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER
IA No. 200981/2026 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER
IA No. 204021/2026 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2026.08.07
15:40:32 IST
Reason:
1
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
ITEM 8
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 986/2025
(IA No. 261808/2025 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF)
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 775/2026 (X)
FOR ADMISSION.....
(IA No. 181645/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 181647/2026 - STAY APPLICATION)
W.P.(C) No. 880/2026 (X)
FOR ADMISSION
(IA No. 205789/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
W.P.(C) No. 877/2026 (X)
FOR ADMISSION
(IA No. 205494/2026 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)
ITEM 9
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 914/2026
FOR ADMISSION
ITEM 10
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 913/2026
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 215826/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 05-08-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. MOHANA
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv.(Amicus Curiae)
Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR
Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Nair, Adv.
Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv.
Ms. Gunjan Rathore, Adv.
Ms. Riya Shankar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Chinmayi Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Chaitanya Sonkeria, Adv.
2
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR
Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR
Ms. T. Geetha, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Kuheli Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Rajlakshmi, Adv.
Mr. Paras Jain, Adv.
Mr. Chaudhary Sameer Hasan, Adv.
Mr. Pravir Kumar Jain, AOR
Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR
ITEM 8
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv.
Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Aayush Kesharwani, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Bharti, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR
Ms. Pankhuri Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Veer Singh,, Adv.
Mrs. Mamta Jain, Adv.
Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Jain,, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv.
Mr. Udayram Bokadia,, Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Jain, Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Jain,, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Singh, AOR
Ms. Divya Garg,, Adv.
Ms. Divya Garg, Adv.
ITEM 9
Mr. Shivaraju H.B., Adv.
3
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv.
Mr. Ashwin Kotemath, Adv.
Mr. Shantkumar Nitturmath, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Garv Vikas, Adv.
Mr. Jasveer Rana, Adv.
Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR
ITEM 10
Mr. Ajay Veer Singh,, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Jain,, Adv.
Mr. Udayram Bokadia,, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Singh,, Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Jain,, Adv.
Ms. Divya Garg,, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. A. Subhashini, AOR
Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR
Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR
Ms. G. Indira, AOR
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Suresh Shambhuprasad Kanojia, Adv.
Mr. Amit Chandramohan Jha, Adv.
Mr. Eresh Roshan Swain, Adv.
Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ramji Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv.
Mr. Devansh Tyagi, Adv.
Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv.
Mr. M Vishnu Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv.
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. Ajay Kumar, AOR
Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
Ms. Arushi Kulshrestha, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Bensla, Adv.
Ms. Mrinmoyee Das, Adv.
Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR
4
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. K. Ram Kumar, AOR
Dr. J. P. Dhanda, AOR
M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR
Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR
Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.
Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.
Mrs. Ruche Anand, Adv.
Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR
Mr. Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, AOR
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
Mr. T. L. Garg, AOR
Mr. Rohit Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Sukhamrit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Kandpal, Adv.
Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.
Mr. P.R. Abhimanyu Karthikeya Raja, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, Adv.
Ms. Riddhi Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Deepika Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv.
Ms. D Tejaswi Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Adviteeya, Adv.
Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR
Mr. I.S.Minhas, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Saini, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Puneet, Adv.
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Ritul Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Raghuvanshi, Adv.
Mr. Onkar Nath Sharma, Adv.
5
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Sahil, Adv.
Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR
Mr. G. Prakash, AOR
Mr. Surya Kant, AOR
Ms. Adviteeya, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR
M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR
Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv.
Mr. B K Satija, Adv.
Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv.
Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv.
Mr. R. R. Rajesh, Adv.
Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Suvesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba (aor), Adv.
Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR
Mr. R. Sathish, AOR
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR
Mr. P S Chandralekha, Adv.
Mr. Virat Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Sridhar Akula, Adv.
Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR
Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR
Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, AOR
Mr. B. D. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, A.A.G./AOR
Ms. Avni Shrivastav, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR
Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR
Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR
Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR
6
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mrs. Saroj Raichura, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
Ms. Shradha Zutshi, Adv.
Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR
Mr. T. V. George, AOR
Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
Mr. P. K. Jain, AOR
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR
Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR
Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR
Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR
M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
Mr. Kishan Datta, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR
Mr. Anil Nag, AOR
Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR
Mr. Reepak Kansal, Adv.
Mrs. Geeta Jain Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms. Alankrita Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Eliza Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Dhir, Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Pravir Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR
Mr. Pranjal Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR
Mr. M. Veerappa, AOR
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
7
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Kailash Prashad Pandey, AOR
Mr. B.k. Mishra Sr Advocate, Adv.
Mr. S.L. Upadhyay Sr. Advocate, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mudgal, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Solanki, Adv.
Mr. Satvik Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Savita Kaushik, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Jha, Adv.
Ms. Asmita Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Sawati Vishan, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Chawla, Adv.
Ms. Divya Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Suresh Kumari, Adv.
Mr. D.p Singh, Adv.
Mr. Desh Pal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jogendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, AG, Meghalaya
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Z.H. Issac Haiding, Adv.
Mr. Daniel Stone Lyngdoh, Adv.
Mr. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR
Mr. Aayush Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, AOR
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ravish Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Akanksha Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Sweta Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Garg, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv.
8
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Ms. Saiyam Maan, Adv.
Ms. Parul Kanojia, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Shekhar, Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR
Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Ms. Jyotika Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv.
Mrs. Pratibha Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shalini Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Vineet Jindal, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Syed Faizan Ali, Adv.
Ms. Gulfeshan Javed, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR
Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Avneesh Arputham, AOR
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Modoyia Kayina, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv.
Mrs. Rajshree Rai, Adv.
Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Devi Prasad Semwal, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Gehlot, Adv.
Mr. Anil Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv.
Ms. Kajri Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Pratap Rai, Adv.
M/S R And R Law Associates, AOR
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
Ms. Disha Jham, AOR
Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, AG, Manipur
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Karun Shamra, Adv.
9
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR
Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR
Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Udit Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR
Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mohd Asim, Adv.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv.
Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR
Mr. Manmohan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Akbar Ali, Adv.
Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Alka Tripathi, Adv.
Dr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Rana, Adv.
Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Surajita Pattanaik, Adv.
Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Adv.
Mr. S Faheem Ahmed, Adv.
Mr. Raj Ranjay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR
Mr. Priyanshu Upadhyay, AOR
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv.
Ms. D Tejaswi Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Adviteeya, Adv.
Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR
Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR
Dr. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Adv.
Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv.
10
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate General (Bihar)
Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.
Mr. Shrey Kapoor , AOR
Ms. Esha Mazumdar , AOR
Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
Mr. K N Balgopal, AG Nagaland, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv.
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR
M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Mr. Nimesh Bhatt, Adv.
Dr. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Adv.
Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Subhro Prokas Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR
Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Adv.
Mr. Karan Chopra, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR
Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR
Mr. Jana Kalyan Das, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Devashish Das, AOR
Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv.
Ms. Anandini Kumari Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Tejasvi Mahajan, Adv.
11
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
Ms. Shreya Kasera, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Sweena Madhavan Nair, AOR
Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR
Ms. Bina Madhavan, AOR
Ms. Shubhangi Arora, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR
Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR
Mr. S.J.Amith, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Amit, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv.
Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR
Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Viplove Parashar, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Diksha Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Anup Kumar Rattan, AG, H.P.
Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, DAG
Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Girish Ringe, AOR
Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR
Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Arushi Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR
Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv.
Mr. P. Venkatraju, Adv.
Ms. M. Harshini, Adv.
12
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Ms. Shradha Agrawal, AOR
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv.
Ms. Sugandh Rathor, AOR
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Ruhi Sultana, Adv.
Mr. Robin Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR
Mr. Santosh Mishra, AOR
Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv.
Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv.
Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv.
Mr. Yeshu Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Tanay Hegde, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR
Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, AOR
Ms. Samriti Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Anushka Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR
Mr. Ankur Kashyap, AOR
Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, AG, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Talha Abdul Rehman, Adv.
Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR
Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR
Mr. Vijay Narayan, AG, Tamil Nadu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, AAG, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Rupali Francesca Samuel, AOR
Mr. Akash Srinanda, Adv.
Ms. Radha Bhujel, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR
Mr. Sushant Dogra, Adv.
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR
13
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Amol V Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR
Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv.
Mr. Shivaraju H.B., Adv.
Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv.
Mr. Ashwin Kotemath, Adv.
Mr. Shantkumar Nitturmath, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Garv Vikas, Adv.
Mr. Jasveer Rana, Adv.
Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Deepika Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kushagra Bajpai, Adv.
Mr. Tilak Raj Pasi, Adv.
Ms. Khushi, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR
Mr. Angad Baxi, AOR
Ms. Narain Rashika Ashok, AOR
Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR
Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv.
Mrs. Puspita Basak, Adv.
Mrs. M.b. Ramya, Adv.
Mrs. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.
Mr. P B Sashaankh, Adv.
Mr. Haresh Nair, Adv.
Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.
Mr. G. Balaji, AOR
Mr. Saktimay Chakraborty AG Tripura, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Devajit Saikia, AG Of Assam,
Ms. Padmini, Adv.
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR
14
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate General
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. B. K. Satija, Sr. A.A.G.
Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR
Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Mr. Rony John, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Bedi, Adv.
Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Vandana Sharma Bhandari, AOR
Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Varun Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sneha Chandna, Adv.
Mr. Milind Modi, Adv.
Mr. Shashikant Chaubey, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham, AOR
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Prince Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Mohneesh Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Vijay Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Awana, AOR
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Viswas, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR
Mr. Devvrat, AOR
Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Tamanna Khan, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.
Ms. Irul Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Mridu J.mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Subas Ray, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR
Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR
Mr. Rohitashya Roy AG, Jharkhand
15
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh Standing Counsel, Adv.
Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv.
Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Anand, Adv.
Mr. Biswajit Deb, AG, Mizoram
Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR
Ms. Shwetank Singh, Adv.
Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Anand,Adv.
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR
Mr. Manu Krishnan G, AOR
Mr. Varun Varma, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Upadhyaya, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Khari, Adv.
Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, AOR
Mr. Himali Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Chandril Chattopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Manaj Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Aastha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Goyal, Adv.
Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv.
Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
Dr. N Vishakamurthy (aor), Adv.
Mr. B.K Satija, Adv.
Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv.
Mr. Nalin Kholi, Adv.
Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv.
Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR
16
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Nitish Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR
Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Advocate General
Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv.
Ms. Kratika Kushwaha, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Amit Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR
Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Adv.
Mrs. Deepeika Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv.
Ms. Khushi, Adv.
Mr. Pareekshit Bishnoi, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Biswas, Adv.
Ms. Pariksha, Adv.
Miss Pariksha, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR
Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR
Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR
Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR
Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR
Mr. Kumar Murlidhar, AOR
Mr. Sanatan Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv.
17
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Suriya Kannan Sabanayagam, Adv.
Mr. P. Ashok, Adv.
Ms. Smita Amratlal Vora, AOR
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Shantanu Krishna, AOR
Ms. Vaishnavi Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR
Mr. Piyush Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Diksha Verma, Adv.
Mr. Jatinder Bir Singh, Adv.
Ms. Usha Bhaskar, Adv.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.
Mr. Shivansh B Pandya, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
Mr. K Rajeev, Adv.
Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR
Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General
Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR
Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv.
Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Rohit Vats, Adv.
Mr. Amodh Bhiduri, Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Nirula, Adv.
Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR
Ms. Pyoli, AOR
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR
Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR
Ms. Vishakha, AOR
Mr. Utkarsh Raj Sahay, Adv.
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR
18
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR
Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR
Mrs. Rajshri Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Amit P Shahi, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, Adv.
Mrs. Sona Khan, Adv.
Mr. H B Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Amit Pai, AOR
Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Shathaayu Patil, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR
Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR
Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR
Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR
Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Adrut Ashish, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Bhatt, Adv.
Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR
Mr. S N Babulkar Sr Adv, Advocate General
Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv.
Ms. Ishita Bist, Adv.
Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv.
Mr. Navneet Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR
Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR
Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. H. D. Thanvi, Adv.
19
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harshit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kshitish Bikarmia, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR
For Impleader Ms. Komal Mundhara, AOR
Mr. Aniket Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Ms. Laxita Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Sr. Adv.
Mr. Zulfikar Ali P.S., AOR
Ms. Lebina Baby, Adv.
Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv.
Mr. Onkar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Avni Singh, Adv.
Ms. Anamika Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Pragati Katiyar, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Sachdeva, Adv.
Mr. Raj Narayan Pal, Adv.
Ms. Ragini Sachdeva, Adv.
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, AG Odisha
Ms. Sanjana Saddy, AOR
Mr. Shailja Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Shashi Kiran Shetty, AG, Karnataka
Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, AOR
Adoorya Bomakka, Adv.
Ms. Anshika Vaishnaw, Adv.
Mr. B.L.N. Sanjit, Adv.
Ms. Rakshita Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ritik Grover, Adv.
ITEM 8
Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Soni, Adv.
Ms. Shubheksha Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv.
Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Gokel, Adv.
20
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Mr. Siddharth Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR
Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Udit Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Sr. Adv./AG M.P.
Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Sr. Adv./AAG
Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, A.A.G.
Mr. Rudraditya Khare, D.A.G.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR
Mr. Shantanu Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Kanishk Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Mishra, AOR
Mr. Jenis V Francis, Adv.
Mr. Harikumar V, Adv.
Mr. Chakma Purnojyoti, Adv.
Mr. Dev Prakash Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Neha, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Jumnani, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The larger issue that falls for consideration in these
applications and batch of petitions pertains to the
enhancement in the age of superannuation/retirement of
judicial officers on an all-India basis.
2. When this matter was heard on 22.07.2026, an interim
arrangement was evolved, whereby, if the State Governments,
in consultation with the jurisdictional High Courts,
resolved to increase the age of retirement beyond 60 years,
judicial officers would be allowed to continue in service
until they attain the enhanced age of retirement.
21
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
3. All the States and the High Courts were, thus,
requested to take a time-bound decision on the issue and
apprise this Court. The learned Advocates General of the
States were requested to remain present and assist us in the
matter.
4. Pursuant thereto, the State of Assam and the NCT of
Delhi have sought further time to comply with our order
dated 22.07.2026, whereas some other States, such as
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, have already enhanced the age
of retirement to 61 years. The learned Additional Advocate
General of the State of Madhya Pradesh also informs that,
taking the recommendation made by the Full Court of the High
Court into account, the State is willing to consider
increasing the age of superannuation but a final decision is
yet to be taken.
5. However, most of the States have declined to enhance
the age of superannuation, citing one or both of the
following reasons for their disagreement:
(i) the disparity in the age of retirement between
the Judicial Officers and employees of the various
Departments of the State Government; and
(ii) an anticipated additional financial burden on the
State exchequer.
6. With regard to the first reason, learned senior
counsel/counsel for the Applicants/Petitioners rely upon
this Court’s opinion in All India Judges Association v.
22
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
Union of India, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 288, the relevant
extracts whereof are to the following effect:
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has
been stated in the judgment under review while
dealing with the same contentions raised there. We
cannot however, help observing that the failure to
realize the distinction between the judicial
service and the other services is at the bottom of
the hostility displayed by the review petitioners
to the directions given in the judgment. The
judicial service is not service in the sense of
’employment’. The Judges are not employees. As
members of the judiciary, they exercise the
sovereign judicial power of the State. They are
holders of public offices in the same way as the
members of the council of ministers and the members
of the legislature. When it is said that in a
democracy such as ours, the executive, the
legislature and the judiciary constitute the three
pillars of the State, what is intended to be
conveyed is that the three essential functions of
the State are entrusted to the three organs of the
State and each one of them in turn represents the
authority of the State. However, those who exercise
the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators
and the Judges, and not the members of their staff
who implement or assist in implementing their
decisions. The council of ministers or the
political executive is different from the
secretarial staff or the administrative executive
which carries out the decisions of the political
executive. Similarly, the Legislators are different
from the legislative staff. So also the Judges from
the judicial staff. The parity is between the
political executive, the Legislators and the Judges
and not between the Judges and the administrative
executive. In some democracies like the USA,
members of some State judiciaries are elected as
much as the members of the legislature and the
heads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level
they may be, represent the State and its authority
unlike the administrative executive or the members
of the other services. The members of the other23
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
services, therefore, cannot be placed on a par with
the members of the judiciary, either
constitutionally or functionally.
xxxx
9. So much for the contention of the review
petitioners that the directions given by this Court
would lead to the demand from the members of the
other services for similar service conditions. It
is high time that all concerned appreciated that
for the reasons pointed out above there cannot be
any link between the service conditions of the
Judges and those of the members of the other
services. It is true that under Article 309 of the
Constitution, the recruitment and conditions of
service of the members of the subordinate judiciary
are to be regulated by the Acts of the appropriate
legislature and pending such legislation, the
President and the Governor or their nominees, as
the case may be, are empowered to make rules
regulating their recruitment and the conditions of
service. It is also true that after the Council of
States makes the necessary declaration under
Article 312, it is the Parliament which is
empowered to create an All India Judicial Service
which will include posts not inferior to the post
of District Judge as defined under Article 236.
However, this does not mean that while determining
the service conditions of the members of the
judiciary, a distinction should not be made between
them and the members of the other services or that
the service conditions of the members of all the
services should be the same. As it is, even among
the other services, a distinction is drawn in the
matter of their service conditions. This Court has
in the judgment under review, pointed out that the
linkage between the service conditions of the
judiciary and that of the administrative executive
was an historical accident. The erstwhile rulers
constituted, only one service, viz., the Indian
Civil Service for recruiting candidates for the
judicial as well as the administrative service and
it is from among the successful candidates in the
examination held for such recruitment, that some
were sent to the administrative side while others
24
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
to the judicial side. Initially, there was also no
clear demarcation between the judicial and
executive services and the same officers used to
perform judicial and executive functions. Since the
then Government had failed to make the distinction
between the two services right from the stage of
the recruitment, its logical consequences in terms
of the service conditions could not be avoided.
With the inauguration of the Constitution and the
separation of the State power distributed among the
three branches, the continuation of the linkage has
become anachronistic and is inconsistent with the
constitutional provisions. As pointed out earlier,
the parity in status is no longer between the
judiciary and the administrative executive but
between the judiciary and the political executive.
Under the Constitution, the judiciary is above the
administrative executive and any attempt to place
it on a par with the administrative executive has
to be discouraged. The failure to grasp this simple
truth is responsible for the contention that the
service conditions of the judiciary must be
comparable to those of the administrative executive
and any amelioration in the service conditions of
the former must necessarily lead to the comparable
improvement in the service conditions of the
latter.”
[Emphasis supplied]
7. On the strength of the above reasons, this Court had
confirmed its 1992 judicial decision1 to increase the age of
retirement of judicial officers from 58 to 60 years.
8. Concomitantly, Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned Amicus
Curiae, through his written submissions, has also pointed
out that for various other professional services under the
Union or State Governments, distinct service conditions and
ages of superannuation are provided for.
1 All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC
119.
25
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
9. Suffice it to say that the principles laid down by
this Court in the above cited judgement continue to be
relevant and deserve to be given due weightage by the State
Governments.
10. The second point of opposition, namely, the purported
additional financial burden, has also been strongly opposed
by the learned senior counsel/counsel representing the
judicial officers. They point out that the judicial
officers, upon retirement, will be entitled to be paid a
lump-sum amount of a variety of retiral benefits, besides a
recurring pension, which is ordinarily pegged at half of the
salary being paid to them while in service. By increasing
the age of superannuation, the State would have to begin
payment of pension at a later date. Contrarily, if the
position becomes vacant, it is submitted, the State will
need to conduct recruitments in its annual cycle and pay
regular salary to the new incumbent.
11. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel/counsel for
the Petitioners/Applicants have attempted to make out a case
that the financial burden on the State would be much lower
than what is anticipated by the Respondents. Furthermore, it
is contended that the benefits of experience gained by
permitting seasoned judges to continue in service far
outweighs any marginal cost incurred by the State.
12. To buttress this submission, our attention has been
drawn to Paragraph 29 of All India Judges Association
26
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
(supra), where this Court has elaborately dealt with the
aspect of the financial burden on the State exchequer:
“29. The alleged financial burden that would be
thrown on the State exchequer on account of the
enhancement of the superannuation age as a result
of the payment of the maximum salary in the pay
scale to the officers for a further period of 2 or
5 years as the case may be, and on account of the
higher outlay on their retiral benefits, is
negligible considering the enormous advantage that
the administration of justice and the society at
large would derive from the enhancement in the age
of retirement. The additional financial outlays
have also to be weighed against those occasioned by
the training of the new recruits, comparatively
lower and slower rate of disposal of cases, higher
rate of incorrect decisions and the consequent more
number of appeals etc.
Further, a simple arithmetical exercise would show
that there is in fact little extra financial outlay
involved. For, as against the payment of the
maximum salary for another 2 or 5 years as the case
may be, we have to calculate, for that period, the
salary of the new recruit and the pension of the
incumbent. The further contention that it would
affect the employment conditions in different
States is equally misconceived since all over India
there are not more than about 10,000 judicial posts
and most of the judicial officers after their
retirement come to be appointed to the quasi-
judicial or administrative tribunals. Thus, we see
no merit in any of the objections to the
enhancement of the retiring age.”
[Emphasis supplied]
13. We have considered these submissions and have perused
the record, including the detailed note and summaries
prepared by the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned senior
counsel/counsel for the Applicants/Petitioners.
14. On a prima facie consideration of the above
27
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
submissions, it appears to us that neither of the reasons
assigned by the State Governments for declining an
enhancement in the age of retirement is tenable.
Nevertheless, this Court must endeavour to resolve such like
issues through a consensus. We, therefore, impress upon all
the State Governments to revisit the issue re: enhancement
of age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years, keeping in
mind the reasons stated above and without being influenced
by the age of superannuation prescribed for the other
Government employees.
15. We may also clarify that the State Governments need
not be constrained to take a specific decision only because
the jurisdictional High Courts have expressed any
reservation against enhancement of age of superannuation.
The viewpoint of the respective High Court shall, it goes
without saying, be considered by this Court while taking a
final decision. However, the State Governments are expected
to take their own independent call in the light of the
factors mentioned above. We would appreciate it if the
competent authorities in the State Governments take up this
issue on an urgent basis with a pragmatic approach and a
decision is taken within two weeks.
16. The High Courts are also requested to look into the
matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove and
pass appropriate resolutions so as to strengthen the hands
of the State Governments. Let such Full Court Resolutions be
28
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022/1989 ETC.
passed at the earliest, if not already so passed.
17. All the State Governments through the Advocate
Generals and the High Courts through the Registrar Generals
are requested to submit their status reports with an advance
copy to learned Amicus Curiae by 2 P.M. on 31.08.2026 to
enable him to collate and compile the same.
18. Needless to state that if the State Governments
resolve to enhance the age of retirement, such benefits
shall be immediately extended to the retiring officers and
to such other officers who are entitled to it in terms of
the interim order dated 22.07.2026. We may, however, clarify
that such benefit shall not be available to any retired
officer who has since obtained subsequent employment or has
been appointed to any other office of profit under the Union
Government or any State Government.
19. Post these matters for further consideration on
01.09.2026. The Registry is directed not to tag W.P.(C)
No.1022 of 1989 with the other petitions.
(GEETA AHUJA) (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR)
DY. REGISTRAR DY. REGISTRAR
29
