Back
Maharashtra Judges Association moves for National Judicial Pay Commission, challenges 8th CPC
The has issued notice on a petition by the that seeks two significant outcomes: the constitution of an independent for all judges across India, and the immediate withdrawal of subordinate judicial officers in Union Territories from the ambit of the .
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed a single-line order on : “, on .” The court reserved no view on the , meaning the respondents—the , all , and —will now have the opportunity to file their before the next hearing.
A Two-Pronged Challenge
The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record and argued by Senior Advocate along with Advocate , rests on two distinct but interconnected limbs.
First , the Association has pressed for a direction to the to immediately constitute an NJPC to comprehensively review and recommend the pay, allowances, perquisites, , pension, and post-retirement benefits of judges of the , all 25 , and the district and subordinate judiciary in every State and Union Territory. The petition proposes that such a commission should submit its report within 18 months, with implementation mandated within three months thereafter. It also demands a system of automatic reconstitution every ten years, with dearness allowance-linked revisions in between.
Second , the Association has challenged of the ’s resolution dated , which constituted the under the chairpersonship of former judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai . This clause empowers the 8th CPC to examine and recommend changes in the of “judicial officers of the subordinate courts in the Union Territories.” The Association contends that subordinating judicial pay to a —even partially—runs directly contrary to the framework established by the in the All India Judges Association line of judgments.
The All India Judges Legacy
The jurisprudential foundation of the petition rests on two landmark judgments. In 1993 , the held that the practice of entrusting the of the subordinate judiciary to the same Pay Commissions that dealt with other government services required reconsideration. The Court emphasised the need for an independent commission dealing exclusively with judicial and directed that judicial officers should have a .
Acting on those directions, the Centre constituted the under Justice K.J. Shetty on . Crucially, the reference to the for fixation of judicial officers’ pay was deleted on .
The specific question of judicial officers in Union Territories arose in the 2002 All India Judges Association judgment. The Centre had evolved separate pay scales for the higher and subordinate judicial service in the Union Territories, including Delhi, on the basis of . The held unequivocally that the Judiciary could not be equated with the Executive and must have its own independent pay structure.
The present petition argues that the inclusion of UT judicial officers within the 8th CPC’s mandate is a “regressive step” that abandons the separate framework painstakingly built through these precedents. It seeks a declaration that is , and contrary to the 1993 and 2001 judgments.
The 8th CPC’s Own Caveat
Notably, the November 2025 resolution constituting the 8th CPC does contain an express safeguard for judicial officers. The terms of reference state:
“In respect of judicial officers, the Commission shall adhere to the by the in its Judgement dated in , viz. that there shall be no link between of judges and administrative executive and that the of judges have to meet the .”
This caveat, however, may not satisfy the Association’s objection. The core question that the will now have to consider is whether the concern over is met merely by instructing a to apply the correct principle, or whether it requires a completely separate body—a National Judicial Pay Commission —in the first place. The has not yet placed its position on record.
An Interim Prayer and a Structural Vision
As an , the Association has sought revision of the salaries of and High Court judges with effect from , to coincide with the implementation of the 8th CPC for Central Government employees. Beyond immediate relief, the petition envisions a permanent institutional architecture: a that would ensure periodic pay revision, a headed by a retired judge, and a dedicated within the Registry to function as its secretariat.
The petition also asks the proposed NJPC to examine national uniformity in pay scales across States; a rational pay differential between the subordinate judiciary, , and the ; post-retirement benefits and restrictions; international best practices in judicial compensation; and the critical link between remuneration and the ability to attract talent to the Bench—an issue directly connected to the persistent problem of judicial vacancies.
What Lies Ahead
With notice issued, the , all , and are now required to file their responses. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 14, 2026 . Meanwhile, the is expected to submit its recommendations within 18 months of its constitution, placing its work and this petition on overlapping timelines.
The outcome of this case could reshape how judicial pay is fixed in India—moving from ad hoc, to an institutionalised, decennial mechanism that respects the constitutional principle of . The Court’s next hearing will offer the first substantive glimpse of the respondents’ positions.
Case Title: v. Union of India and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 650 of 2026]
