In a significant ruling on January 3, the Supreme Court overturned the directives of the Allahabad High Court, quashing attempts to detain two Uttar Pradesh government Secretaries for alleged non-compliance with orders related to retired judges’ facilities. The apex court explicitly stated that High Court Chief Justices, when acting on the administrative front, lack the authority to assume the rulemaking responsibility vested in the executive branch.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and accompanied by Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that policymaking involves multifaceted considerations, including local and financial aspects. The Supreme Court asserted that the High Court, within its judicial powers, cannot coerce the State Government into notifying rules proposed by the Chief Justice, stating, “browbeating the State Government” is beyond the court’s purview.
This ruling stemmed from two orders issued by the Allahabad High Court on April 4 and April 19, 2023, directing the Uttar Pradesh Government to notify rules proposed by the Chief Justice regarding post-retiral benefits for former judges. The Supreme Court stayed these orders on April 20, 2023, and subsequently addressed key legal questions, particularly the High Court’s authority to mandate rule notifications.
Clarifying Article 229(2) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court underscored that the High Court Chief Justice’s mandate, drawn from Article 229, pertains solely to service conditions of officers and servants, excluding judges. The court deemed the High Court’s reliance on Article 229(2) as misplaced, emphasizing the need for Governor’s approval for rules on salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions.
The bench criticized the Allahabad High Court’s interpretation of its previous judgments, pointing out an erroneous and overreaching reading of the directions in the case of P Ramakrishnan Raju vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court clarified that these judgments did not grant High Court Chief Justices the power to frame rules on post-retiral benefits, emphasizing the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
Concluding that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Chief Justice’s rules, made beyond their competence, could at best be considered as suggestions to the State Government. Policymaking, the court stressed, involves various steps and considerations, and the High Court cannot use its judicial powers to compel the State Government to enact rules.
This landmark judgment, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges, signifies a reaffirmation of the executive’s authority over post-retiral benefits, setting guidelines for the boundaries of High Court directives.
