Part V: The Union

The Union Judiciary

Article 125: Salaries, etc., of Judges

--- Original Article ---

(1) There shall be paid to the Judges of the Supreme Court such salaries as may be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule.

(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such privileges and allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such privileges, allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule:

Provided that neither the privileges nor the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.

Amendment Section

1. Subs. by the Constitution (Fifty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1986, s. 2, for cl. (1) (w.e.f. 1-4-1986).

Explanations and Historical Context

Article 125 of the Constitution of India deals with the salaries, privileges, allowances, and rights of the Judges of the Supreme Court. This provision ensures that judges are provided with appropriate financial compensation and benefits, preserving their independence and dignity. The article safeguards against the reduction of their privileges or allowances after their appointment, reflecting the judiciary's vital role in maintaining justice and constitutional supremacy in the country.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause (1) – Salaries of Supreme Court Judges

As per Article 125(1), the salaries of Supreme Court Judges are to be determined by Parliament through legislation. Until such a law is enacted, the salaries specified in the Second Schedule of the Constitution will apply. This provision emphasizes the principle that remuneration of judges must be determined through a democratic process, highlighting the separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary.

Amendment: This clause was substituted by the Constitution (Fifty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1986. Prior to this amendment, the salary details were more directly mentioned. The amendment enabled Parliament to have greater flexibility in adjusting salaries over time, without needing frequent constitutional changes. The amendment took effect on April 1, 1986.

Historical Context: The Fifty-fourth Amendment reflected a growing need to align judicial salaries with inflation and other economic factors, ensuring that judges are compensated in a manner that reflects their prestigious position in society. It underscored the need for flexibility in salary adjustments over time to maintain the independence and efficiency of the judiciary.

Clause (2) – Privileges, Allowances, Leave, and Pension

Article 125(2) states that Judges of the Supreme Court are entitled to various privileges and allowances, as well as leave and pension rights, as determined by Parliament through law. Until Parliament makes such provisions, these rights and entitlements are to follow what is mentioned in the Second Schedule. This ensures that judges are provided adequate support in their personal and professional lives.

Proviso – Protection Against Disadvantageous Changes: The proviso under Article 125(2) ensures that a judge’s privileges, allowances, leave, and pension cannot be altered to their disadvantage after appointment. This guarantees judicial independence by preventing any political interference aimed at reducing the benefits of judges, which could otherwise pressure them into compliance with executive or legislative authorities.

Real-Life Examples

• In 2018, the salaries of the judges were revised through legislation passed by Parliament, increasing the salary of the Chief Justice of India to ₹2.8 lakh per month and that of other Supreme Court Judges to ₹2.5 lakh per month. This adjustment was made under the framework of Article 125, which enables such legislative changes.
• Adequate pensions and leave entitlements continue to be crucial in ensuring that retired judges can maintain a standard of living that befits their service to the country.

Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

Judicial independence has been consistently reinforced by ensuring that judges receive adequate compensation and cannot be subjected to disadvantageous changes in their entitlements after appointment. Courts have frequently referenced the constitutional guarantee under Article 125 to uphold the principle of judicial independence.

Legislative History

Article 125 of the Indian Constitution, originally introduced and discussed as Article 104 of the Draft Constitution on different days, May 27 and July 30, 1949, was later incorporated into the final text of the Constitution.

Debates and Amendments

During the Constituent Assembly Debate, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar introduced a proposal to replace the existing Article 104 with a new provision that outlined the salaries, privileges, and allowances of the Supreme Court judges. During the debate on this proposed amendment, Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru introduced an amendment to protect the pension rights of future judges. His amendment sought to ensure that future judges would not receive pensions that were lower than those granted to current judges.

Pandit Kunzru argued that reducing pensions could make judicial appointments less attractive to top legal talent, particularly because judges are prohibited from practicing law after their retirement. He emphasized that maintaining competitive salaries and pensions was essential to attracting the best legal minds to the judiciary.

Dr. Ambedkar opposed this amendment, explaining that the principle of safeguarding the interests of current judges was already included in the new article. He further pointed out that pensions are intrinsically linked to salary and years of service. Since the salaries of Federal Court judges appointed to the Supreme Court had not yet been finalized, he argued that Pandit Kunzru’s amendment was premature and unnecessary.

During the debate, Mr. Sidhva sought clarification regarding whether Parliament could provide a furnished residence for the Chief Justice. Dr. Ambedkar responded by stating that such details would be discussed at a later stage.

The amendment proposed by Pandit Kunzru was ultimately rejected, and the revised Article 104, as proposed by Dr. Ambedkar, was adopted and incorporated into the Constitution.

References

• The Constitution of India - Article 125, Salaries, etc., of Judges.
• The Constitution (Fifty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1986.
• Constituent Assembly Debates - Article 104 (Draft Constitution).