In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday, October 27, 2025, issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh government and the state’s High Court registry. The apex court is seeking their response on a petition challenging their decision not to raise the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 61 years.
Earlier this year, on May 26, a Bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai had explicitly stated that there was no legal obstacle to increasing the retirement age for judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh to 61. This recent action by the Supreme Court, which included Justice K. Vinod Chandran, comes after the Madhya Pradesh Judges Association filed a petition, reigniting the debate.
The Judges Association has strongly contested an administrative decision made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. This decision rejected the request to increase the retirement age, despite the Supreme Court’s clear instructions given earlier in the year. The Association contends that this refusal directly violates the Supreme Court’s May 26 order, which clarified that there was “no impediment” to raising the retirement age for District Judges to 61 years.
Following its previous directive, the Supreme Court had instructed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to finalize an administrative decision on this matter within two months. However, the High Court reportedly communicated its refusal orally through the Registrar General and has yet to provide a written copy of its administrative order, dated August 22, 2025.
According to the petition, an office-bearer of the Association was verbally informed that the plea for an enhanced superannuation age had been either deferred or rejected, based on the High Court’s assessment that there was no current need for such a change. The petitioners have described the High Court’s actions as a “step-motherly treatment” towards the judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary.
The plea further elaborated, stating, “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.”
Representing the petitioner Association, senior advocate Ajit S Bhasme highlighted that their request was merely for parity with judicial officers in Telangana. In Telangana, the retirement age for district judges has already been raised to 61 years, aligning with a previous Supreme Court clarification. Mr. Bhasme emphasized, “We are not seeking enhancement to 62 years, only to 61 years, as permitted for Telangana.”
After considering these submissions, the Supreme Court issued notices to both the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the State government. The case is scheduled to be heard again in two weeks.
Previously, when the Association first approached the top court in 2018 seeking to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 years, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had rejected it. They cited a 2002 Supreme Court judgment in the All India Judges Association case, which they interpreted as prohibiting such an increase. However, the Association later revised its request, seeking an increase only to 61 years, based on the precedent set in another state.
The Supreme Court clarified its stance by referring to its recent order concerning an application filed by the Telangana government in the very same All India Judges Association case. In that instance, the Telangana High Court had sought clarification on increasing the retirement age of district judges to 61 years. The apex court had granted permission, finding no legal barriers.
Drawing on this precedent, the Chief Justice of India had affirmed, “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 reiterated that any such increase would be contingent upon the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s administrative decision, adding, “In case the High Court takes a decision to increase the age to 61, the same will be permitted.”