SC issues notice to Madhya Pradesh, HC registry on plea for enhancing retirement age of judges

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 27, 2025) sought responses from the Madhya Pradesh government and the high court registry on a plea challenging the refusal to enhance the retirement age of judicial officers in the state from 60 to 61 years.

On May 26, a Bench headed by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai had said there was no legal impediment in raising the retirement age to 61 years for judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh.

On Monday, the apex court Bench, which also comprised Justice K. Vinod Chandran besides the CJI, issued the notices while hearing the petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh Judges Association.

The judges’ body has assailed an administrative decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court declining to increase the retirement age despite clear directions from the apex court earlier this year.

The Association said that the refusal was in violation of the Supreme Court’s order dated May 26, in which the bench led by the CJI had clarified that there was “no impediment” to raising the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years.

The top court had then directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take an administrative decision on the issue within two months.

According to the petition, the High Court communicated its decision orally through the Registrar General and has not provided a copy of its administrative order dated August 22, 2025.

“The Hon’ble High Court has even refused to provide a copy of its decision to the petitioner. The office-bearer of the petitioner association was orally informed that the plea for enhancement of superannuation age has been kept in abeyance or rejected on the ground that at present there is no requirement to do so,” the plea said.

The petitioners alleged that the conduct of the High Court reflected “step-motherly treatment” towards judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary.

“The negative attitude adopted by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in this matter of legitimate expectation is a clear example of step-motherly treatment meted out to the judicial officers at the hands of their own guardian court,” the plea added.

Appearing for the petitioner Association, senior advocate Ajit S Bhasme argued that it was merely seeking parity with judicial officers in Telangana, where the retirement age of district judges has already been enhanced to 61 years in accordance with the Supreme Court’s clarification.

“We are not seeking enhancement to 62 years, only to 61 years, as permitted for Telangana,” Mr. Bhasme submitted.

Considering the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the State government. The matter will now be heard after two weeks.

Earlier, the Bench had said there was no legal impediment in raising the retirement age to 61 years for judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh and asked the high court to take a decision, preferably in two months, on the issue on its administrative side.

The Association had moved the top court in 2018 for raising the retirement age of district judges from the current 60 to 62 years.

It later informed the bench that the Association is now seeking enhancement only up to 61 years, aligning with a precedent set in another State.

The Association had first made a representation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2018.

The high court, however, rejected the request, citing the 2002 Supreme Court judgment in the All India Judges Association case, which it interpreted as disallowing such enhancement.

The top court had referred to its recent order in an application filed by the Telangana government in the same All India Judges Association case.

In that case, the Telangana High Court had sought clarification regarding increasing the retirement age of district judges to 61 years.

The court had permitted it, finding no legal impediment.

Relying on that precedent, the CJI had said, “In that view of the order, we do not find that there should be any impediment in permitting the State of Madhya Pradesh to increase the age of superannuation of judicial officers working in the State to 61 years.”

The Bench said any such increase would be subject to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision on its administrative side.

“In case the High Court takes a decision to increase the age to 61, the same will be permitted,” it said.