The Supreme Court on Friday has upheld the compulsory retirement of a batch of judicial officers, reiterating that the High Court, on its administrative side, is entitled to weed out “deadwood” in public interest based on overall performance. At the same time, the Court clarified that such retirement orders are not punitive and will not deprive the officers of post-retirement benefits.

Senior advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the petitioners, argued that their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) did not contain adverse or “inadequate” remarks, and no vigilance inquiry had established misconduct. It was contended that the High Court’s decision had a stigmatic effect, and some officers had even been promoted through competitive examinations prior to being compulsorily retired.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant,Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, however, emphasised that judicial service cannot be assessed on ordinary service law principles and that performance standards are deliberately kept high.

“You can’t apply general service jurisprudence principles in the judicial services… yardstick or parameters must be of high pedestal…The benefit of doubt must go to the institution, not the individual.”

The Court noted that even in the absence of formal disciplinary proceedings, the Full Court is entitled to form an opinion based on overall performance and institutional inputs. It rejected the argument that compulsory retirement automatically amounts to stigma, clarifying that performance assessment cannot be equated with punitive action.

“That’s a definition of your performance. That’s got nothing to do with stigma.”

However, the Bench acknowledged that in the High Court’s judgment, individual facts may not have been elaborately discussed, giving rise to an impression that retirement was linked to specific unproven complaints. To address this, the Court clarified:

“Each order of compulsory retirement passed in these cases is based upon overall performance of the officers and not referable to any specific unsubstantiated complaints.”

Reaffirming the scope of judicial review, the Court observed that while High Court administrative decisions are not beyond scrutiny, interference is warranted only where the decision-making process is tainted by illegality or absence of valid reasons.

The Court made it clear that compulsory retirement would not affect pensionary or other post-retiral benefits:

“The impugned orders of compulsory retirement cannot cause any impediment in the claim of the petitioners for post-retiral benefits.”