NEW DELHI: On Thursday, the Supreme Court recommended that the Centre appoint a former high court chief justice to lead a panel focused on establishing a uniform national policy regarding post-retirement benefits for retired high court judges. This suggestion arose after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other justices that the government would form the committee in line with a previous directive.
The law officers indicated that a former secretary-level official was proposed as the head of the committee. “I believe a former chief justice of a high court should chair the committee,” said Chief Justice Surya Kant, who presided over the bench alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The solicitor general concurred with this suggestion, stating that the government would return to the bench on September 28 with an update.
The bench was reviewing a contempt petition filed by Justice VS Dave, president of the Association of Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which raised concerns regarding security and other entitlements for retired judges. During the session, CJI Kant inquired about the adequacy of financial assistance some states provide for hiring security personnel and drivers for former judges. “Is it feasible to get a driver and a security officer for Rs 45,000-50,000?” he questioned.
Emphasizing the inconsistency among states, the CJI proposed that the Centre establish a committee to set standardized guidelines and explore matching financial support. “If you don’t take action, I will have to form one,” he told Solicitor General Mehta.
In response, Mehta confirmed that the government had no objections to creating such a committee and would take steps to address the issue in accordance with the Supreme Court’s expressed sentiments. In its order, the bench remarked that the proceedings concern the post-retirement benefits and facilities for retired chief justices and judges of high courts, which include domestic help, drivers, phone services, medical reimbursements, and retention of government accommodations. “Basic provisions like domestic help, drivers, telephones, and medical reimbursement vary significantly from state to state,” the bench stated, explaining that this lack of uniformity led the Association of Retired Judges to seek redress from the authorities and ultimately the court.
