Indian Supreme Court judicial service reforms

The Supreme Court of India has initiated legal measures to standardize judicial service rules and address judicial conduct. The Court directed seven states—Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal—to increase the retirement age of judicial officers from 60 to 62 years to retain experienced talent. This extension requires High Courts to conduct suitability assessments for officers reaching age 60. Other states and Union Territories, including Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, and Gujarat, were instructed to reconsider their policies and submit compliance reports.

In subsequent proceedings, the Court has urged states like Kerala to reconsider opposition to the retirement age increase. Additionally, the Court issued a notice to the Centre regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the perks and amenities granted to constitutional functionaries who resign to avoid formal removal proceedings. The petitioner argues that providing post-resignation entitlements to those bypassing removal processes is unconstitutional.

Internal judicial conduct has also come under scrutiny. Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has escalated allegations against Rajasthan High Court judge Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the former acting chief justice of that court. In a letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Mehta accused Sharma of maladministration, nepotism, and abusing administrative powers. Specifically, Mehta alleged that Sharma interfered in an internal judicial enquiry conducted by a committee of three female judges regarding an officer accused of displaying indecent photos of a colleague. Mehta claimed this intervention breached confidentiality and threatened the independence of the proceedings. Justice Sharma has dismissed the allegations as baseless.