Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) issued contempt notice to Chief Secretaries of six states over non-compliance with its directions concerning the entitlement of retired High Court Judges to medical facilities, domestic help, and telephone allowances.

The notices have been issued for non-compliance with six directions, including parity of facilities with sitting Judges, reimbursement without prior State approval, sanctioning authority of Registrar Generals, reimbursement for treatment in other States, cashless facilities, and benefits relating to domestic help and telephone allowances

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Telangana, West Bengal, and Delhi had not complied with the directions issued earlier.

“As far as states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Telangana, West Bengal and Delhi are concerned, they have not complied with all the directions issued by this Court. Issue notice to Chief Secretaries of the aforesaid states, calling upon them to show cause as to why action against Contempt of Courts Act should not be issued against these states”, the Court ordered.

By way of indulgence, the Court extended the time granted to the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Lakshadweep to report compliance within one month from the date of the order.

The contempt notices issued to the Chief Secretaries are returnable on July 25, 2025. For the time being, the Court dispensed with the personal presence of the Chief Secretaries, subject to the condition that a responsible IAS officer shall be present in court on the next date either in person or via video conference.

“The Contempt notice to the Chief Secretaries is returnable on 25th July. For the time being we dispense with the personal presence of the Chief Secretaries subject to the condition that a responsible IAS officer shall be present in the court on the next date either personally or through VC”, the Court stated.

“A simple thing, you have to issue a notice granting benefits on par with Andhra Pradesh, even that takes so many months”, Justice Oka remarked.

Background

The Court on February 18, 2025 said that all reimbursements concerning retirement benefits must be made by the concerned State Government, defined as the State where the seat of the High Court from which the Judge retired is located.

On April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court had cautioned State Governments that non-compliance with its orders regarding medical facilities for retired High Court Judges, their spouses, and dependants could attract action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981. The Court also clarified that the responsible State could be either the State of the first High Court appointment or the State where the Judge retired.

On the same date, the Court criticized Madhya Pradesh for delays in implementing the cashless treatment facility. Although Madhya Pradesh claimed six months were needed, the Court granted only one month and ordered immediate amendment of the relevant Government Order, which had previously limited reimbursement to emergency treatment.

On April 29, 2025, the court reviewed the status of compliance with the six directions, and noted that Andhra Pradesh had complied fully with all directions and 2021 Rules.

The Supreme Court directed the other states to comply with its earlier orders on post-retirement benefits for former judges based on Andhra Pradesh's 2021 Rules. After reviewing compliance affidavits, the court directed states of Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Manipur, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh to implement or align benefits like domestic help, telephone reimbursement, and cashless medical treatment.

Bihar claimed to provide better domestic help and telephone benefits under its own 2019 Rules but was directed to allow retired Judges the option to choose between Bihar's rules and Andhra Pradesh's 2021 Rules, with Bihar required to comply with the latter in absence of such option.

On that day, the court cautioned the States of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Telangana and West Bengal and the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep, Delhi, Puducherry and Ladakh of contempt action if they failed to comply by May 21, 2025.

Case no. – CONMT.PET. (C) No. 425-426/2015 In W.P.(C) No. 523/2002

Case Title – Justice V.S. Dave President, the Association of Retd. Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts v. Kusumjit Sidhu & Ors.