In a landmark ruling on November 30, 2023, the Supreme Court emphasized the imperative of ensuring dignified working conditions for judicial officers, both during their active service and post-retirement. The pivotal case, All India Judges Association v. Union of India, focused on the implementation of recommended pay hikes for judges, as proposed by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
The court underscored the profound correlation between providing adequate allowances to judges and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. It firmly stated that financial dignity plays a pivotal role in upholding the faith and confidence of the general public in the rule of law. The court articulated:
“Apart from the arduous nature of the duties and functions, it also needs to be emphasized that providing for judges both during their tenure and upon retirement has a core relationship with the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence, necessary to preserve the faith and common citizens’ confidence in the rule of law, can be ensured and enhanced so long as judges are able to live and lead their lives with a sense of financial dignity.”
The Apex Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, declared that the judicial service is a critical component of the state’s function, integral to sustaining the Rule of Law. The bench highlighted the unique characteristics and responsibilities vested in officers of the district judiciary for the objective dispensation of justice to citizens. It emphasized the state’s duty to ensure that conditions of service align with the requirement for dignity, both during the tenure of office and after retirement, for former judicial service candidates. The bench asserted:
“The state is duty-bound to ensure that the conditions of service both during the tenure of office and upon retirement are commensurate with the need for dignity in terms of working conditions and post-retirement benefits made available to former judicial service candidates.”
The court’s order shed light on the strenuous nature of the work undertaken by judicial officers, extending beyond conventional court hours. It highlighted that district judicial officers work tirelessly for case preparation, judgment drafting, and various administrative functions integral to their responsibilities. The court expressed:
“Members of the district judiciary are the first point of engagement for citizens who are confronted with the need for dispute resolution. The conditions in which judicial offices across the country work are, to say the least, arduous. The work of the judicial officer is not confined merely to the working hours rendered in the course of judicial duties in the court. Every judicial officer is required to work both before and after court working hours.”
Dispelling misconceptions about a judge’s work being solely assessed during court hours, the court emphasized the wide-ranging administrative duties undertaken by members of the district judiciary. It added:
“That apart, members of the district judiciary have wide-ranging administrative functions which take place beyond working hours. These include engagement with the discharge of numerous duties in relation to prison establishments, postal institutions, legal services camps etc. Hence, it is a misnomer to postulate that the work of a judge is assessed in terms of the performance of duties during court working hours.”
Addressing potential financial concerns raised by the states, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that increased expenditure for maintaining proper conditions of service was a justifiable defense. The court highlighted that judicial officers dedicate a significant portion of their working hours in service to the institution, often limiting opportunities for legal work outside their judicial duties. The bench held:
“The state, which is under an affirmative obligation to ensure dignified conditions of work for judicial officers, cannot justifiably raise the defense of an increase in financial burden or expenditure necessitated by the maintenance of proper conditions of service. Judicial officers spend the largest part of their working hours in service of the institution. The nature of judicial office often renders incapacitated opportunities for legal work, which may otherwise be available to a member of the bar. That furnishes an additional reason that by post-retirement, there is a necessity for the state to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in conditions of human dignity.”
