On Monday, the Supreme Court of India brought attention to the issue of retired district judges not receiving sufficient pension, highlighting concerns over their financial well-being after years of service to the judicial institution. The matter was underscored during a hearing presided over by a Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud voiced serious apprehensions regarding the meager pension amounts received by retired district judges, which he noted ranged from a mere 19,000 to 20,000 rupees despite their extensive tenure in the judicial service. This observation underscores the glaring inadequacy of the pension provided to these retired officials, particularly considering their long-standing dedication and contribution to the judiciary.

Moreover, the Chief Justice shed light on another disconcerting aspect, pointing out that some High Court judges were also facing challenges in receiving their pension after retirement. This revelation underscores a broader systemic issue that extends beyond the district level, further emphasizing the urgency of addressing pension discrepancies across various levels of the judiciary.

Responding to these concerns, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani assured the court of his commitment to investigating the matter. While acknowledging the gravity of the situation, the Attorney General clarified that the pension issue may not be prevalent among all High Court judges, suggesting a nuanced examination of the matter to identify specific cases requiring attention and rectification.

This recent development echoes earlier sentiments expressed by the Supreme Court regarding the importance of ensuring dignified post-retirement lives for judicial officers. In previous hearings, the Bench had emphasized the significant portion of their careers that judges dedicate to the service of the judiciary, underscoring the need for adequate pension provisions to uphold their dignity and well-being in retirement.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's stern warning issued in November serves as a testament to its unwavering commitment to addressing pension disparities. The Court had cautioned Chief Secretaries of states regarding potential contempt of court actions if they failed to comply with directives to implement revised pension rates for district judges from a specified date, signaling a firm stance against any lapses in ensuring financial security for retired judges.