Salaries, etc., of Judges

Article 104, Draft Constitution 1948

The judges of the Supreme Court shall be entitled to such salaries and allowances, and to such rights in respect of leave and pensions, as may from time to time be fixed by or under law made by Parliament, and until they are so fixed shall be entitled to such salaries, allowances and rights in respect of leave of absence or pension as are specified in the Second Schedule:

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

Article 125, Constitution of India 1950

(1) There shall be paid to the Judges of the Supreme Court 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.

Draft Article 104 (Article 125) was debated on 30 July 1949. It laid out the rules pertaining to the salaries, allowances, and rights of judges of the Supreme Court.

The Chairman of the Drafting committee moved an Amendment to wholly replace the Draft Article. The debates in the Assembly were based on this amendment. The amendment added the word ‘privileges’ which was missing from the initial Draft Article.

One member proposed the insertion of the following proviso to clause (2):

‘ Provided that no law made under this article by Parliament shall provide that the pension allowable to a judge of the Supreme Court under that law shall be less than that which would have been admissible to him if he had been governed by the provisions which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution were applicable to the judges of the Federal Court.’

He argued that the Draft Article as it stood, allowed Parliament to reduce the salaries and pension of future judges of the Supreme Court. As higher salaries were necessary to attract the brightest legal minds to the bench, he wanted to restrain Parliament from reducing salaries, and thereby their pensions, below the level at which the current judges of the Federal Court were compensated. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee responded that this amendment presumed that the present Federal Court judges would continue to receive the same salary. It was outside the scope of the Drafting Committee to make such a decision, which would instead be left to Parliament; as such, the amendment was premature.

The proposed amendment by the member was negatived, while the Assembly accepted the amendment proposed by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. The amended Draft Article was passed by the Assembly, and it was adopted on 30 July 1949.