As 5.18 crore cases lie pending in district courts across the country, the Supreme Court has sent a distress call to States to enhance the retirement age of experienced judicial officers from 60 to 62 years.
Only seven States have so far responded positively to the SOS from the Supreme Court. Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have agreed to enhance the retirement age of their judicial officers. These States include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Keralam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, and Puducherry. These High Courts have recommended a thorough assessment of judicial work as a condition precedent to ensure that only competent officers of proven integrity were permitted to continue in the cadre.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, in a September 1 order published on Friday (September 4, 2026), directed these State governments to amend the service rules within two months. The State High Court concerned would enhance the age of superannuation to 62 years of judicial officers, subject to their suitability assessment, on their attainment of 60 years of age. The court has directed them to take a decision on enhancement of retirement age of their judicial officers to 62 years in two weeks. Besides, the court said simple math showed that a State, by retaining the retirement age of 60 years, would double-spend post-retiral dues of superannuated judicial officers as well as in paying the salaries of the newly-appointed ones.
The court said the “crying need of the hour” is to stop the attrition of the experienced judicial talent lest access to justice remain a mere chimera due to unfilled posts. Some High Courts, including Madras, the court recorded has “wisely” introduced relevant riders so that the deadwood did not take advantage of the proposal to enhance superannuation age. “This suggestion is most welcome as it would balance the preservation of experienced judicial officers, while removing the clog of deadwood, blocking the entrance of young blood invigorating the system,” the Supreme Court observed.
