State Must Provide Dignified Working Conditions To Judicial Officers; Financial Dignity Essential For Judicial Independence: Supreme Court

While pronouncing an order in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court today (30.11.2023) underscored the importance of ensuring dignified working conditions for judicial officers, both during their tenure and post-retirement. The case at hand pertained to the implementation of pay hikes for judicial officers recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). In its order, the court also emphasized the correlation between providing appropriate allowances to judges and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, asserting that financial dignity was essential for preserving the faith and confidence of common citizens in the rule of law. The court asserted–

"Apart from the arduous nature of the duties and functions, it also needs to be emphasised that providing for judges both during their tenure and upon retirement has a corelationship with independence of judiciary. Judicial independence which is 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."

Through its order, the Apex Court declared that the judicial service constitutes a crucial element of the state's function and is integral to sustaining the Rule of Law. The bench emphasized the distinct characteristics and responsibilities vested in officers of the district judiciary for the objective dispensation of justice to citizens. The court underscored the duty of the state 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 led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra stated–

"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 order highlighted the strenuous nature of the work undertaken by judicial officers, extending beyond conventional court hours. The bench asserted that the district judicial officers worked beyond court hours for preparation for cases, drafting judgments, and engaging in various administrative functions, which were all integral aspects of a judicial officer's responsibilities. It stated–

"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."

The court dispelled the misconception that a judge's work should be assessed solely during court working hours, emphasizing 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."

In response to 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 order emphasized 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 to the judicial officers cannot justifiably raise the defence of 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 of legal work which may otherwise be available to a member of the bar. That furnishes an additional reason that by post-retirement, there is necessary for the state to ensure that judicial officers are able to live in conditions of human dignity."

The story was based on the part-pronouncement of the judgment in the open court. The judgment was uploaded on January 4, 2024. Detailed reports on the judgment can be found here.

Case Title: All India Judges Association v Union Of India And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 643/2015