The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to frame uniform rules for Court Managers within 3 months, adopting Assam’s 2018 Rules as a model. It mandated their regularization, Class-II Gazetted status, and career progression, while allowing states to modify rules as needed. The judgment emphasized judicial efficiency and upheld Article 229 & 309 (Constitution) for service conditions. Existing contractual Court Managers must pass a suitability test for regularization, with benefits from their initial appointment date but no arrears. The ruling ensures standardized administrative support to reduce judges’ workload and enhance justice delivery.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from multiple Interlocutory Applications (IAs) and a Writ Petition concerning the service conditions of Court Managers, a role introduced by the 13th Finance Commission (2010-2015) to assist judges in administrative tasks and improve judicial efficiency. Despite recommendations, most states appointed Court Managers on contractual or ad hoc bases, leading to disparities in pay, benefits, and job security. The Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC, 2022) highlighted these inconsistencies and urged regularization. In 2018, the Supreme Court, in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, directed states to regularize existing Court Managers, but compliance was lacking.
In 2023–2024, intervenors—including the Court Manager Welfare Association and individuals like Sachin Kumar Gupta—filed IAs seeking uniform rules, higher pay scales, and regularization. A Writ Petition (W.P. (C) No. 301/2024) echoed these demands. The petitioners argued that the Assam Rules of 2018, which provided a structured framework for Court Managers, should serve as a model for nationwide implementation. The Court examined affidavits from states and High Courts, revealing that many had not framed rules or approved pending drafts, leaving Court Managers in precarious employment conditions. The judgment aimed to resolve this ad-hocism by mandating uniform rules, regularization, and better service conditions, ensuring Court Managers could effectively support judicial administration.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case traces back to the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which first directed the regularization of Court Managers and emphasized their role in judicial administration. Despite this, most High Courts and State Governments failed to implement uniform rules, leading to continued ad-hoc appointments. In 2023, I.A. No. 135045 of 2023 was filed seeking directions to expedite pending litigation in the Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding Court Managers’ absorption. Subsequently, in 2024, I.A. Nos. 187237 & 187240 of 2024 were filed by the Court Manager Welfare Association and intervenors, demanding standardized service conditions, Gazetted status, and regularization. A separate Writ Petition (W.P. (C) No. 301 of 2024) also sought similar reliefs. The Supreme Court consolidated these matters and examined affidavits from various High Courts and States, revealing inconsistent compliance with prior directives. Relying on the 13th Finance Commission’s recommendations, the SNJPC Report (2022), and its 2018 judgment, the Court issued binding directions in its May 16, 2025 verdict, mandating uniform rules within 3 months, regularization of existing Court Managers, and adoption of the Assam Rules (2018) as a model framework. The judgment closed the lingering procedural gaps, ensuring nationwide implementation.
READ ALSO : Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals
Court Observation:
In its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court made several critical observations regarding the role and regularization of Court Managers in India’s judicial system. The Court emphasized that efficient court administration is indispensable for reducing case backlogs and enabling judges to focus on core judicial functions, as envisioned by the 13th Finance Commission (2010). It noted with concern the persistent ad-hocism in appointments, with most states employing Court Managers on contractual or consolidated pay bases without benefits, contrary to its 2018 directions in All India Judges Association. The Bench highlighted the Assam Rules of 2018 as a model framework, praising their provisions for regularization, Gazetted status, and career progression, while allowing states flexibility to adapt rules to local needs.
The Court underscored that Article 229 (High Court’s autonomy over staff conditions) and Article 309 (state’s power to regulate services) must align with the broader goal of standardized judicial administration. It rejected states’ excuses, such as funding shortages, stressing that investing in Court Managers is non-negotiable for improving justice delivery. The judgment also addressed fairness to existing contractual appointees, mandating their regularization post a suitability test but denying arrears to balance equity with fiscal prudence. Notably, the Court warned against overlapping roles with Registrars, clarifying that Court Managers must strictly handle non-judicial administrative tasks. The observations reaffirmed that judicial infrastructure reforms—including professional court management—are vital for upholding the rule of law and access to justice under Article 21.
Final Decision & Judgement:
In its final judgment dated May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court issued decisive directives to standardize and strengthen the role of Court Managers across India’s judiciary. The Bench, led by CJI B.R. Gavai, mandated all High Courts to frame or amend rules for Court Managers within 3 months, adopting the Assam Rules of 2018 as the model framework, while permitting state-specific modifications. It upheld Class-II Gazetted status for Court Managers, ensuring uniform pay scales, allowances, and service benefits, and directed states to regularize existing contractual appointees subject to a suitability test, with benefits retroactive to their initial appointment date (excluding arrears). The Court ordered completion of regularization within 3 months of rule approval and held Registrar Generals and Chief Secretaries personally accountable for compliance. Additionally, it clarified that Court Managers must work under the supervision of Registrars/District Judges, with duties strictly limited to non-judicial administrative functions to avoid role overlap. The judgment disposed of pending IAs and writ petitions, including a directive to the Punjab & Haryana High Court to resolve related litigation in line with this ruling. By prioritizing judicial efficiency and fair employment conditions, the verdict reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to systemic reforms under Articles 229 and 309 of the Constitution, while balancing equity for existing appointees and fiscal discipline for states.
Case Details:
Case Title:All India Judges Association & Others v. Union of India & Others Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2024 Date of Judgment:May 16, 2025 Bench:Chief Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih & Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Download The Judgement Here