Judicial Service Not Equal To Other Govt Services; Judicial Officers' Service Conditions Must Be Uniform Across Country : Supreme Court

Observing that judicial service cannot be equated with the service of other officers of the Government, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the pay and allowances of judicial officers and other government officers should be equivalent.

The Court made this observation in the judgment passed in the All India Judges Association case directing the States to implement the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission regarding the pay and allowances for judicial officers.

The judgment delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra stated :

"Judges are not comparable with the administrative executive. They discharge sovereign state functions and just like the Council of Ministers or the political executive and their service is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the political executive, judges are distinct from judicial staff, and are thus comparable with the political executive and legislature".

Rejecting the plea of equivalence, the judgment stated :

"It would be wholly inappropriate to equate judicial service with the service of other officers of the State. The functions, duties, restrictions and restraints operating during and after service are entirely distinct for members of the judicial service."

In this regard, the bench relied on the observations in the earlier order passed in the same case on May 19, 2023, as follows :

"Separation of powers demands that the officers of the Judiciary be treated separately and distinct from the staff of the legislative and executive wings. It must be remembered the judges are not employees of the State but are holders of public office who wield sovereign judicial power. In that sense, they are only comparable to members of the legislature and ministers in the executive. Parity, thus, cannot be claimed between staff of the legislative wing and executive wing with officers of the judicial wing. This Court in All India Judges' Assn. (II) v. Union of India, explained the distinction and held that 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. Thus, there cannot be any objection that judicial officers receive pay which is not at par with executive staff."

Service conditions of judges must be uniform across the Court

The Court also rejected the argument of States that the service conditions must be based on the rules of the particular state.

"This Court has categorically held that there is a need to maintain uniformity in the service conditions of judicial officers across the country. Thus, the plea that rules of each State must govern pay and allowances lacks substance," the judgment stated.

In this regard, the judgment quoted from the May 2023 order as follows :

"India has a unified judiciary under the scheme of the Constitution. A unified judiciary necessarily entails that the service conditions of judges of one state are equivalent to similar posts of judges of other states. The purpose of this constitutional scheme is to ensure that the judicial system is uniform, effective and efficient in its functioning. Efficient functioning necessarily requires judges of caliber and capacity to be provided with the right incentives and promotion opportunities to maintain the high level of functioning of the judiciary."

The judgment set a deadline of February 29, 2024 for the States to pay the arrears to judicial officers in terms of the recommendations of the SNJPC. The Court also directed the High Courts to constitute a committee named 'Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary' to oversee the implementation.