Text

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges (2023)

---

Facts:

 In 2011, The Association of Retired SC and HC Judges at Allahabad filed a
petition seeking an increase in allowances for former HC Judges,
particularly for domestic help and related expenses. In response, The Chief
Justice of Allahabad HC proposed new rules under Article 229 of The
Indian Constitution to enhance these post- retirement benefits.
 The HC directed the UP Government to implement these proposed rules.
However, The State Government faced legal challenges in doing so and filed
an application to recall the HC’s order. The HC reviewed it and initiated
criminal contempt proceedings against several Government Officials,
leading to their detention.
 The UP Government appealed to SC, which ruled that the Chief Justice of a
HC does not have the authority under Article 229 to frame rules
regarding post-retirement benefits for former Judges. Consequently, The
HC’s directive to the State Government to notify such rules was beyond the
jurisdiction. Additionally, the SC found that the HC’s initiation of criminal
contempt proceedings against the officials was unwarranted, as their
actions did not meet the criteria for contempt.
 In Summary, The SC clarified that HC don’t possess power of unilaterally
establish post-retirement benefits for former Judges and should not resort
to contempt proceedings against Government Officials without sufficient
grounds.


Issues:
 Does the Chief Justice of a HC have authority under Article 229 of The
Indian Constitution to frame rules for post-retirement benefits of Judges?
 Can HC direct the State Government to notify rules regarding post-
retirement benefits for retired Judges?
 Was the HC justified in initiating criminal contempt proceedings against UP
Government Officials for filing a recall application?
 Does merely filing a recall application amount to contempt of court?
 Under what circumstances can courts summon Government Officials, and
should it be a routine practice?
 Should courts rely on Government law Officers and affidavit instead of
frequently summoning officials?


Arguments of both Parties (Appellant and Respondent):

Arguments by the State of Uttar Pradesh:
 Jurisdictional Overreach: The Government argued that the Allahabad HC
went beyond its power by ordering it to approve certain rules suggested by
the Chief Justice about post-retirement benefits for former Judges. So, they
claimed that the Chief Justice didn’t have authority to make rules about
benefits for retired Judges.
 Separation of Powers: The Government argued that forcing them to make
specific rules would interfere with the powers of the legislature and the
executive. They said that making laws and policies is the job of the
Government and the law makers, not the court. So the Judiciary shouldn’t
order to create new rules.
 Contempt Proceedings: The Government argued that officials shouldn’t
face contempt charges just for requesting a review of a court decision. They
claimed that using legal options is not an act of disrespect towards the court,
and punishing officials for doing so would violate their right to a fair
process.

Arguments by the Association of Retired Judges:
 Equitable Treatment: The Association suggested that the Retired Judges in
UP should get better post-retirement benefits. They believed that it would be
fair to give retired judges similar allowances as a way to recognize their
service.
 Judicial Recommendations: The Association noted that the Chief Justice
has suggested some rules to provide domestic help and other benefits to
Retired Judges. They argued that it should be taken seriously and put into
action to support the dignity and well being of former Judges.
 Delay in Implementation: The Association was worried about the State
Government’s delay in implementing proposed rules. They argued that this
delay was unfair and called for Judicial action to speed up the process.

Held:
This judgment was important because it reminded courts to respect the boundaries
between the judiciary (courts), the executive (government), and the legislature
(lawmakers). The Supreme Court of India gave three important decisions:
 Judges Cannot Force the Government to Make Rules :- The Allahabad
HC proposed the UP Government to make rules about benefits for retired
Judges. The SC said that this was wrong because only the government can
decide such matters, not the courts and Judges can suggest only.
 No Punishment for Asking for a Review :- Some Government Officials
had asked HC to reconsider its decision. In response HC started contempt of
court proceedings against them. The SC ruled that this was unfair. Asking
for a review is a legal right and should not be treated as disrespect towards
the court.
 Government Officers Should Not Be Summoned Unnecessarily :- The
HC was frequently calling senior Government Officials to court. The SC
said this shouldn’t happen unless necessary and laid down rules on when and
how government officials can be asked to appear in court.

---

Detail Information

Title

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

Civil Appeal Nos. 23-24 of 2024

Matter(s)

-

Councels

Appellant : Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Respondent : Represented by Advocate Nishit Agrawal

Statement of Responsibility

SOFIYA KHAN

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment