The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that State governments cannot oppose the proposal to increase the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years merely by citing financial burden or the fact that government employees retire at a lower age.

Calling both reasons "untenable," a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan directed all States that had opposed the proposal to reconsider the issue independently and take a fresh decision within two weeks.

The Court also clarified that State governments are free to approve the enhancement even if their respective High Courts have expressed reservations. It said the concerns raised by High Courts would be examined separately at an appropriate stage.

The directions came during the hearing of the All India Judges Association case, which is examining the proposal to increase the retirement age of members of the district judiciary.

Earlier, the Court had sought responses from all States and High Courts on raising the retirement age of District Judges. While several States opposed the move, most relied on two common grounds—an increased financial burden on the exchequer and the difference between the retirement age of judicial officers and other government employees.

Rejecting the financial burden argument, the Bench observed that retaining experienced judicial officers would actually reduce costs by avoiding frequent vacancies, recruitment drives, training, and induction of new officers.

The Court noted that experienced judges are an institutional asset and continuing them in service could prove more economical than replacing them with newly recruited officers.

Addressing the second objection, the Bench emphasised that judicial officers cannot be equated with government servants.

"Judicial officers are not government servants though they are appointed by the State Government. They constitute a distinct and separate class," the Court observed.

The Bench urged States to reconsider the proposal regardless of the retirement age applicable to other government employees.

"We impress upon the States to revisit the issue of enhancement of the retirement age from 60 to 62 years, irrespective of the age of superannuation prescribed for government officers," the Court said.

It further clarified that States should not hesitate to take a positive decision simply because the jurisdictional High Court has not supported the proposal.

The Court directed all State governments to adopt a pragmatic approach and take an independent decision on the matter within two weeks.

The Bench heard Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar (amicus curiae), Advocate Generals of various States, and Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Vijay Hansaria, among others, before passing the order. Sr. Advocate Ashish Giri represented one such judicial officer from Rajasthan who sought the change.

Case: All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989)