1993 (8) TMI 296 - SC - Indian Laws

Judicial Independence Emphasized in Subordinate Judiciary Service Conditions Directive

All India Judges' Association and others Versus Union of India and others

The Court upheld the directions regarding service conditions of the subordinate judiciary, emphasizing judicial independence and the need for a distinct ... - Issues Involved:1. General objections to the directions given by the Court regarding the service conditions of the subordinate judiciary.2. Specific objections to the directions given by the Court.Summary:General Objections:[a] Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution: The appointment and regulation of service conditions of District Judges and other judicial officers are within the purview of the State legislature/Government, and the Court's directions curtail this power.[b] S.L. Sachdev and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.: The Court cannot interfere with administrative policy unless it violates constitutional provisions like Article 14, which was not a ground raised in the writ petition.[c] Service Conditions Evolution: The service conditions of the Subordinate Judiciary have evolved over time alongside other government services, and changes in isolation may lead to demands from other services.[d] Policy and Financial Implications: Uniformity in service conditions is a policy matter for the State Government, considering financial limitations.[e] Financial Outlay: The directions involve heavy financial outlay, and varying resources among States make uniform implementation challenging.[f] State Pay Commissions: The feasibility of referring pay-scale questions to State Pay Commissions deserves careful consideration.[g] Resource Allocation: Mandatory directions for resource allocation impair executive and legislative competence in prioritizing developmental activities.[h] Article 309 of the Constitution: Matters concerning service conditions are to be decided by the State Government/Union Territory Administration, and the Court's directions impinge on these powers.[i] Constitutional Scheme: The directions should be recommendations prompting legislative and executive study and gradual implementation.[j] Judicial Function: The higher judiciary's function is limited to examining the constitutional validity of State legislature/government actions.Specific Objections:[a] Retirement Age: Increasing retirement age to 60 years may have implications for other services with late entry, and the interests of government servants are protected by adding years to qualifying service for pension purposes.[b] Sedentary Work: The judiciary is not unique in sedentary work, and other services like Central Secretariat Service perform similar work. Factors like experience utilization and youth employment need consideration.[c] Residential Accommodation and Facilities: Providing residential accommodation, vehicles, library facilities, and training facilities involves substantial investment, with an estimated need for 5000 houses costing Rs. 150-250 crores.Court's Response:Judicial Independence: The judicial service is distinct from other services, exercising sovereign judicial power. Judges are not employees but holders of public offices, representing State authority. Judicial independence requires self-reliance, and the society has a stake in ensuring it.Service Conditions: The judiciary's service conditions should not be linked to those of the administrative executive. The distinction between judges and other services must be maintained to secure judicial independence.Encroachment on Powers: The directions do not encroach on executive and legislative powers but call upon them to perform their obligatory duties. The directions aim to evolve an appropriate national policy for judicial service conditions.Financial Burden: The financial burden argument is misconceived. Obligatory duties must be discharged regardless of financial implications.All India Judicial Services: The direction to set up All India Judicial Service reiterates the Law Commission's recommendations. The Union of India should take the initiative, and the procedure under Article 312 must be followed.Uniform Hierarchy and Designation: No serious objection to uniform hierarchy and designations. Uniform qualifications and recruitment procedures for judicial officers are necessary.Superannuation Age: The superannuation age is extended to 60 years, with assessment for continued utility at 58 years. The financial burden is negligible compared to the benefits to the administration of justice.Uniform Pay Scales: Uniform pay scales are necessary, and a separate Pay Commission for judicial officers is desirable. The financial burden argument is irrelevant.Allowances: Residential office-cum-library allowance is necessary due to the lack of law books and journals. Sumptuary allowance for District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates is rescinded.Residential Accommodation: Proper residential accommodation with office-cum-study room is essential. The judiciary should get top priority in housing.Conveyance: District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates need independent vehicles for official duties. Pool vehicles and loans for two-wheelers are necessary for other judicial officers.In-service Training: The establishment of a National Judicial Academy makes it optional for States to have independent or joint training institutes.Conclusion:The review petitions are disposed of, and directions are maintained with modifications. Compliance timelines are extended, and further proceedings for implementation should be filed only in the Supreme Court.