The Supreme Court has directed state governments to revisit the issue of enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers, stating that concerns of financial burden are ‘misconceived.’ A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana emphasized that retaining experienced judicial officers may impose a lesser financial liability than retiring them and filling the resulting vacancies.
The court observed that the continuation of experienced and seasoned judicial officers would entail a lesser financial liability than what the state would incur upon their retirement. The Bench noted that the reasons assigned by state governments for declining to enhance the age of retirement are ‘untenable.’ The Supreme Court has asked state governments to take a decision on this issue within two weeks, in consultation with their respective jurisdictional high courts.
In its order, the court stated that if a state government decides to enhance the age of retirement, the benefit of such a decision shall also be extended to judicial officers who retire during the intervening period. The Supreme Court had earlier asked states and Union Territories to consider raising the age of superannuation of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years. 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.
While the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65, high court judges superannuate at the age of 62 years. Some states, including Telangana and Madhya Pradesh, have moved towards increasing the retirement age. On November 20, 2025, a Bench headed by the then CJI B.R. Gavai had raised the retirement age of judicial officers of Madhya Pradesh from 60 to 61 years.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition seeking uniform enhancement of the retirement age of district judiciary judges from 60 to 62 years across the country. The Bench directed all state governments and Union Territories to take a decision on this issue and permit judicial officers in such states to continue in service up to the age of 61 years, subject to the final outcome of these proceedings.
