All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2023
The case of All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2023) is a significant one, as it relates to the financial benefits and allowances provided to judges across India. This case has been ongoing for several years, with the most recent developments occurring in 2023.
In this case, the All India Judges Association (AIJA) had challenged the government’s decision to deny certain financial benefits and allowances to judges, arguing that this was a violation of their rights. The AIJA argued that judges should be provided with adequate financial support to ensure their independence and impartiality in dispensing justice.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated January 9, 2024, upheld the earlier decision of the court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (II) and held that contentions regarding the financial implications of the directions are liable to be rejected when the directions stem from a constitutional mandate.
The court directed the Union of India to take necessary steps to ensure that the financial benefits and allowances provided to judges are in accordance with the constitutional mandate and the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission.
This case has significant implications for the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in India, as it highlights the importance of providing adequate financial support to judges to ensure that they can discharge their duties without fear or favor.
The case of All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2023) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India issued on May 19, 2Here are some key takeaways from the judgement:
- District judiciary’s independence: The court emphasized that the independence of the district judiciary is part of India’s basic structure. This bolsters the idea that the district judiciary should function without undue influence from other branches of government.
- Judges not state employees: The judgement clarified that judges are not employees of the state. This distinction is crucial in ensuring judicial independence.
- Salary parity: The court ruled that an increase in the salary of high court judges must be reflected in a proportionate increase for district judges’ salaries. This aims to maintain parity between the two levels of the judiciary.
- Relaxed norms for promotions: The judgement relaxed the norms for promotion (referred to as ACP Norms) for civil judges in their initial years. This was done in recognition of the fact that meeting disposal targets during this period may not be the most accurate measure of a judge’s potential.
- Pension calculations: The court also ruled on the calculation of pensions for judicial officers, specifying that any increment due on the day after retirement should be notionally included for pension purposes.
This case was significant for upholding judicial independence and ensuring better service conditions for judges in India.
All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2023
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record – Association and another Vs. Union of India
Advocates & Lawyers - Advocate in Jabalpur 