Petition seeking revision in Judges’ Salary: Hearing commences in Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has begun hearing a petition seeking a revision of the salaries of Supreme Court and High Court judges. The petition, which has been filed by one Deepak Khosla [Deepak Khosla v. Hon’ble President of India and Ors. (W.P (C) 2139/ 2013], is being heard by a Division Bench comprising of Justices Pratibha Rani and Pradeep Nadrajog..The Union of India along with the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been arrayed as respondents in the petition. Khosla, has sought an increase in the salaries of the judges “in terms of what was foreseen by the Constitution-framers in 1950,” and also after accounting for “the Constituent Assembly Debates and the alternative earning opportunities available to Hon’ble Judges”:.Khosla has sought the following salaries for judges:.i) Chief Justice of India : Rs. 30 lakh per month.ii) Judges of the Supreme Court : Rs. 24 lakh per month.iii) Chief Justice of a High Court : Rs. 24 lakh per month.iv) Judges of a High Court : Rs. 21 lakh per month.Apart from increasing the salaries of the judges, Khosla has also asked for raising the retirement age of High Court judges to 65 from 62; doing away with the practice of providing accommodation for High Court judges, and for greater funds for developing infrastructure for judiciary..Khosla, appearing in person, submitted that his petition was based on two essential rights viz., the right to speedy and cost effective justice, and the imparting of justice by an independent judiciary. He contended that the Constitution has prescribed salaries of only three categories of government servants, viz., the President of India and Governors of States, Comptroller and Auditor General and judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court. This, contended Khosla, reflected the significance attached to these offices as a consequence of which the salaries were quantified and power was given to the legislature to review it from time to time. The Court asked him as to why the essential conditions required for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, viz., (i) demand made to the concerned authority and (ii) refusal by the authority to perform the duty, have not been specifically averred in the petition. Khosla replied that the citizens of the country including him have been making those demands by sending representatives to the parliament since 1950 and the omission by the people’s representatives to perform their duty should be deemed to be a refusal on the part of the legislature to perform their duty..He further, submitted that the issues raised in his petition had been raised in Parliament umpteen times. He contended that when the issue of raising the retirement age of High Court judges was brought up by different parliamentarians, the answers provided were grossly unsatisfactory. He also submitted that a Bill had been tabled in the Parliament in 2007 by Rajeev Chandrasekhar for raising the retirement age of High Court judges. The Bill has been pending for the last 6 years, which manifested the attitude of the Executive towards resolving the issue..The Court told Khosla that “the issues raised in the petition have been the cry of the judiciary itself”. However, it maintained that the petition was very bulky and all the issues raised in the petition could not be taken up together. The Court, therefore, sought the help of Advocate Viraj Datar, appearing for Delhi High Court, to identify the issues to be taken up initially and to provide a “road map” on how to proceed about the hearing. It posted the matter for April 15, 2013. However, no formal notice was issued..Subsequent to the same, drama ensued when Khosla raised the issue of a Senior Advocate’s elevation as High Court judge. He said that the said advocate was facing perjury proceedings and he had suppressed that fact while filing his nomination. Advocate Datar and Advocate Rajiv Bansal took objection to the same and a heated argument ensued as the Court rose for the day. This is not the only time Khosla has attracted the attention of Delhi High Court; he had recently approached the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, alleging “gross judicial misconduct” committed by a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.