New Delhi: The Supreme Court has formally requested responses from the Madhya Pradesh government and the state’s High Court registry concerning a petition that challenges the denial of a request to raise the retirement age for judicial officers. The plea seeks to increase the retirement age from the current 60 years to 61 years.
This development follows a previous observation made by a bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, on May 26. At that time, the bench had indicated that there were no legal obstacles to raising the retirement age to 61 for judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh.
On Monday, the apex court bench, which included Justice K Vinod Chandran, issued notices after hearing the petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh Judges Association. The association is contesting an administrative decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which declined to extend the retirement age despite earlier clear directives from the Supreme Court.
According to the Association’s statement, the High Court’s refusal directly contravenes the Supreme Court’s order from May 26. In that order, the Chief Justice-led bench had affirmed that there was “no impediment” to increasing the retirement age for District Judges to 61.
The Supreme Court had previously instructed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to make an administrative decision on this matter within a two-month timeframe. However, the petition indicates that the High Court conveyed its decision orally through the Registrar General, without providing a written copy of the administrative order dated August 22, 2025.
The plea states, “The Hon’ble High Court has even refused to provide a copy of its decision to the petitioner. The office-bearer of the petitioner association was orally informed that the plea for enhancement of superannuation age has been kept in abeyance or rejected on the ground that at present there is no requirement to do so.”
The petitioners have expressed that the High Court’s actions demonstrate “step-motherly treatment” towards judicial officers within the subordinate judiciary. They further alleged that the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s negative stance on this matter of legitimate expectation is a clear example of unfair treatment by their own guardian court.
Senior advocate Ajit S Bhasme, representing the petitioner Association, argued that the aim is simply to achieve parity with judicial officers in Telangana, where the retirement age for district judges has already been raised to 61, in line with the Supreme Court’s clarification.
“We are not seeking enhancement to 62 years, only to 61 years, as permitted for Telangana,” Bhasme submitted.
After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court issued notices to both the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the state government. The case is now scheduled to be heard in two weeks.
Previously, the bench had reiterated that there were no legal barriers to increasing the retirement age for judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh to 61 and had urged the high court to make a decision on its administrative side within two months.
The Association had initially approached the Supreme Court in 2018, seeking to raise the retirement age of district judges from 60 to 62 years. Subsequently, they informed the court that they were now only seeking an increase to 61 years, following a precedent set in another state.
The Association had first submitted a representation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2018. However, the high court rejected the request, citing a 2002 Supreme Court judgment in the All India Judges Association case, which it interpreted as prohibiting such an age enhancement.
The Supreme Court referenced its recent order concerning an application filed by the Telangana government in the same All India Judges Association case. In that instance, the Telangana High Court had sought clarification on increasing the retirement age for district judges to 61, which the court had permitted, finding no legal impediment.
Citing this precedent, the Chief Justice had stated, “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 also clarified that any such increase would be contingent upon the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision on its administrative side, adding, “In case the High Court takes a decision to increase the age to 61, the same will be permitted.”
Note: This article was generated from an automated news agency feed and has been presented without modifications.