The Union government has expressed reservations to a parliamentary panel about implementing performance-based extension of tenure for Supreme Court and High Court judges beyond the current retirement age of 65 and 62 years respectively.
Earlier Recommendations
- The Parliamentary Committee Report on Reforms in January 2022 recommended performance-linked tenure extension of Supreme Court and High Court judges beyond retirement age
- The panel proposed an annual internal appraisal review after 62 years for High Court judges and 65 years for Supreme Court judges to identify productive members
- This aligned with the National Court Management Systems (NCMS) proposal of incremental performance-based retirement for judges
Centre’s Response
- The government recently responded highlighting practical difficulties in objectively assessing judges by internal peer review panels for selective age extensions.
- It stated metrics that sufficiently capture qualitative aspects like fairness, justice delivery are still evolving beyond quantitative case disposal rates.
- So selective extension may encourage subjective biases jeopardizing credibility of independence and seniority-based succession.
The Case for Raising Retirement Age
Proponents for raising judicial retirement ages argue the move can:
- Reduce high vacancy rates: Over 23% of India’s higher judiciary positions remain vacant as timely recruitment lags retirements
- Retain experienced talent: Nearly 180 years of collective experience is lost every year according to a study
- Global best practices: Countries like Australia, Canada, Japan and USA have retirement ages of 70 years for apex court judges
Central Opposition
The government has cited the below concerns around selectively extending tenures based on performance review:
- Practical difficulties in objective assessment: No definitive metrics currently exist to grade judges qualitatively beyond case disposal rates
- Risk of prejudice: Peer review by sitting judges may encourage intangible biases jeopardizing integrity
- Overlooking recent initiatives: The Centre has already increased HC bench strength from 1081 to 1108 along with introducing special incentives for taking up post-retirement arbitrator roles
The move may negatively impact timely career progression opportunities for younger judges the Centre feels.
Monitoring Reforms Underway
While opposing age extension, the Centre has highlighted ongoing efforts to improve legal adjudication quantitatively through monitoring mechanisms like:
- National Judicial Data Grid: Providing database of 15 crore case details for tracking pendency
- E-Courts Mission Mode Project: Digitizing over 20 crore pages of High Court records for analysis
- Yield Factor formula: To assess actual monthly courtroom deliberation hours more accurately
The core focus remains on addressing underlying administrative and procedural bottlenecks plaguing case disposal rates rather than prolonging tenures in isolation.
Analyzing Merit in the Proposal
Those supporting enhancing retirement ceiling for judges present the below compelling arguments
| Argument | Reasoning | Implications |
| Addressing vacancies | 23% positions in HCs vacant, raising age can slow attrition rate | Key factor behind case pendency is judge shortage |
| Retaining experience | Nearly 2 centuries of collective experience lost every year | Longer-serving judges dispose cases faster |
| Global precedent | Nations like UK, Canada have retirement age of 70 or 75 years for apex courts | India’s ceiling is almost a decade lower by comparison |
23% of India’s higher judiciary positions remain vacant, impacting pendency. Extending meritorious judges’ tenure through yearly performance appraisals has been proposed by aligning global retirement age practices of 70-75 years. But the Centre remains unconvinced about peer review feasibility without metrics that sufficiently capture qualitative aspects. It has alternatively highlighted digitization, courtroom hours monitoring and live dashboards to enhance productivity.
