Supreme Court asks states to consider raising judges’ retirement age

The Supreme Court directed states and Union Territories to consider raising the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years in consultation with their respective high courts. The interim arrangement will take effect from April 1, 2026, subject to the final verdict

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the states and Union Territories (UTs) to consider raising the age of superannuation of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohan passed the direction while hearing a petition seeking uniform enhancement of the retirement age of district judiciary judges from 60 to 62 years across the country.

---

“All state governments and Union Territories (UTs) are directed to take a decision, in consultation with their respective jurisdictional high courts, on this issue. In case they agree, judicial officers in such states shall be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 61 years. Such continuation shall remain subject to the final outcome of these proceedings,” the Bench ordered.

The provision will come into effect from April 1, 2026.

While the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65 years, High Court judges retire at the age of 62 years.

The Bench also said that the interim arrangement would not prejudice the final adjudication on the substantive legal question of whether the retirement age of district judicial officers should be uniformly enhanced from 60 to 62 years across the country.

“We clarify that the question of law formulated at the outset shall be decided by this court independently, irrespective of the stand that may be taken by the states or the high courts,” the Bench said.

It directed all states and UTs, after consulting their respective high courts, to place their stand on record within two weeks.

The jurisdictional high courts have also been asked to file their responses within the same period.

However, the Bench clarified that states and the high courts that are already in agreement with enhancing the retirement age need not file detailed counter affidavits, and a brief statement indicating their concurrence would suffice.

The issue arises against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s 2002 judgment declining to accept the recommendation of the Justice K Jagannatha Shetty Commission, which had proposed raising the retirement age of district judges to 62 years.

Since then, some states, including Telangana and Madhya Pradesh, have moved towards increasing the retirement age.

On Wednesday, the Bench was informed that the Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had passed a resolution recommending enhancement of the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years.

It was, however, pointed out that certain high courts, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court, continue to oppose the proposal, citing the fact that the retirement age of government employees in their respective states remains 60 years or below.

Observing that the issue requires an early resolution in view of the differing positions adopted across the country, the Bench put in place the interim mechanism permitting an increase to 61 years wherever there is consensus between the state government and the high court.

On November 20 last year, a Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, who has since retired, had raised the retirement age of judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh from 60 to 61 years.

The Bench, in its interim order, had referred to a similar decision taken by the Telangana High Court.

It asked why judicial officers should be denied the relief when the state government was willing to do so.

“It is needless to say that judicial officers as well as other employees of the state government draw salaries from the same public exchequer,” the Bench said, adding that the retirement age of other state government employees was 62 years.