LexJUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1042 : 2024 INSC 862 Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 2023 05 November 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (1) Whether Judges of the High Court appointed from the District Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident Fund (GPF) on the basis of their previous service under the New Pension Scheme (NPS); and (2) Whether all Judges of the High Court, irrespective of their source of recruitment, constitute a homogenous class for determining service conditions, including post-retirement benefits. Headnotes† High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s.20 – Constitution of India – Art.14, 216, 217, 221 – Provident Fund Subscription by Judges of the High Court – Non-discrimination based on source of recruitment – All Judges of the High Court, whether drawn from the Bar or District Judiciary, form a single homogenous class: Held: Judges of the High Court are constitutional office holders, and once appointed, no distinction can be made between Judges based on their source of recruitment, whether from the Bar or the District Judiciary in light of the sense of homogeneity envisaged by Art.216 of the Constitution – Art.221(2) of the Constitution guarantees uniformity in service conditions, and any discrimination violates the principle of equality under Art.14 – The proviso to s.20 of the 1954 Act, which allows Judges to continue subscribing to their previous provident fund, does not preclude District Judiciary Judges from joining the General Provident Fund if no previous fund subscription exists. [Paras 21, 22, 27, 34] * Author [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1043 Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Doctrine/Principles – Financial independence of Judges – Integral to judicial independence – No differentiation permissible in service conditions based on source of recruitment: Held: Judicial independence is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and financial independence, including equitable service and retirement benefits, is essential to ensure judicial independence – Once appointed to the High Court, Judges’ service conditions and post-retirement benefits must reflect the constitutional principle of equality – Any attempt to distinguish between Judges based on their source of recruitment undermines the judiciary’s integrity – The 54th Amendment to the Constitution also stipulated determination of salary and other connected matters by Parliament in order to ensure national uniformity in their conditions of service [Paras 22, 24, 23, 34(iv), (vi)] Interpretation of Proviso to Section 20 – Judges with no prior subscription to a provident fund under the NPS cannot be denied the benefit of the General Provident Fund: Held: The substantive part of Section 20 mandates that every Judge of the High Court shall be entitled to subscribe to the General Provident Fund – The proviso is merely explanatory, allowing continuity for those already subscribing to a different provident fund but does not exclude others from joining the GPF – Judges from the District Judiciary who did not subscribe to a provident fund under the NPS cannot be denied this benefit. [Paras 29, 33, 35] Case Law Cited P. Ramakrishnam Raju v. Union of India [2014] 4 SCR 562 : (2014) 12 SCC 1; Union of India v. Justice (Retd.) Raj Rahul Garg 2024 INSC 219 : [2024] 3 SCR 848; All India Judges Association v. Union of India 2024 INSC 26 : [2024] 1 SCR 327 – relied on. List of Acts High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. 1044 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Keywords High Court Judges’ Salaries; General Provident Fund; Non- discrimination; Judicial Independence; Financial Independence of Judiciary. Case Arising From CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 232 of 2023 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2024 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1262 of 2021 Appearances for Parties K. Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae, M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Advs. Vikrant Singh Bais, Prem Prakash, Ms. Deepali Nanda, Advs. for the Petitioners. R. Venkatramani, AGI, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Vatsal Joshi, Akshit Pradhan, Shlok Chandra, Raghav Sharma, Raman Yadav, Kartikay Aggarwal, Chitvan Singhal, Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Arvi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.