Supreme Court Mandates Uniform Service Conditions and Regularization of Court Managers Across India

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, delivered the verdict in a batch of Interlocutory Applications and a writ petition filed by Court Manager Welfare Association, Sachin Kumar Gupta, Lokesh Kumar, and others. The applications sought the regularization of Court Managers, better pay scales, service benefits, and a uniform set of rules across the States.

Background and the Role of Court Managers

The post of Court Manager was introduced by the 13th Finance Commission to provide administrative support to judges, thereby allowing them to focus on core judicial functions. The Commission recommended one Court Manager per judicial district, and two per High Court, with estimated funding of ₹300 crore over five years.

Court Managers were expected to possess management qualifications (typically MBAs), with experience in systems, IT, HR, and financial management. Their responsibilities span a wide array, including case flow and human resource management, maintaining court statistics, infrastructure oversight, financial systems, IT management, and compliance with judicial standards.

However, despite their crucial role, most Court Managers across India were engaged on a contractual basis without uniform service rules, fixed promotional avenues, or adequate allowances. The lack of systemic recognition and standardization led to disparities across States, prompting repeated litigation and recommendations from successive judicial commissions.

Judicial Observations and Precedents

The Court highlighted its own 2018 judgment in the All India Judges Association case, where it had already recognized the necessity of Court Managers and directed their regularization. It reiterated that Court Managers contribute significantly to improving the quality and speed of justice delivery by easing administrative burdens on judges.

Subsequently, the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC), in its 2022 report under the chairmanship of Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi, also underscored the indispensable role of Court Managers. It observed that although many are professionally qualified and experienced, their services remain underutilized due to ad-hoc employment policies, lack of allowances, and absence of promotional mechanisms.

The SNJPC advocated for regularization, improved pay scales, and adoption of model service rules such as those implemented in Assam, which include a structured career path, duties, and regular employment benefits.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court expressed concern that despite earlier directions and comprehensive reports, many States and High Courts had not framed rules for the service conditions of Court Managers. In some cases, governments even discontinued their services citing financial constraints, a move the Court termed "unjustified."

Recognizing the fragmented and inconsistent treatment of Court Managers, the Court emphasized the need for a uniform framework. It reiterated the importance of having trained administrative professionals in the court system to support judges, especially in the 21st-century judicial ecosystem increasingly reliant on technology, data, and complex infrastructure.

Drawing from the best practices adopted in Assam, Chhattisgarh, and Tamil Nadu, the Court concluded that a common model must be implemented nationally, with minor permissible deviations suited to specific State contexts.

Key Directions Issued

The Court issued several significant directives, including:

Model Rules Based on Assam:

All High Courts are directed to frame or amend rules governing the recruitment and service conditions of Court Managers within three months, using the Assam Rules of 2018 as the model. These rules cover regularization, roles, career progression, and pay benefits.

State Government Approval:

State Governments must approve the rules submitted by High Courts within an additional three months, ensuring no undue delays.

Regularization and Suitability Tests:

Court Managers currently serving on contract or consolidated pay must be evaluated through a suitability test. Those who qualify will be regularized from the date of their initial appointment, though arrears of differential salary will not be granted.

Designation and Supervision:

The rank of Court Managers shall be equivalent to Class-II Gazetted Officers. In High Courts, they will work under Registrars, while in District Courts, they will report to the head of ministerial staff.

Uniform Career Progression:

High Courts and State Governments must provide either promotional avenues or an Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme to prevent stagnation.

Personal Accountability:

Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Secretaries of State Governments will be personally responsible for compliance with the deadlines.

A Call to Enhance Judicial Infrastructure

In broader observations, the Court criticized the deteriorating infrastructure in lower courts, especially in non-metropolitan areas. It reaffirmed that Court Managers are not merely auxiliary staff but integral to the "justice delivery architecture," ensuring timely, effective, and affordable justice.

“The court complex is not just a building; it is the building of justice which breathes life into the ideals of the Constitution,” the bench noted.

The judgment also took note of scholarly research by institutions like DAKSH and NALSAR, which had previously flagged the underutilization and mismanagement of Court Managers’ roles. It encouraged High Courts to tailor the duties of Court Managers to local requirements while staying within the framework of the model rules.

Amicus Curiae’s Contributions

The Court praised the meticulous efforts of Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appointed as amicus curiae, for presenting a consolidated report on the status of Court Managers across States and offering pragmatic suggestions. His proposal to adopt the Assam Rules as a national model and to hold suitability tests instead of fresh recruitment was accepted in full.

Implications and the Road Ahead

This judgment is expected to bring much-needed uniformity and recognition to Court Managers, enhancing their morale and efficiency. It marks a turning point in judicial reforms, pushing High Courts and State Governments to take concrete steps towards modernizing court management.

It is also a reminder that judicial directions must be acted upon expeditiously, especially when they concern the backbone of judicial administration. The Court’s strong language regarding the personal responsibility of officials underscores the seriousness of the matter.

The judgment also disposes of related writ petitions and applications, including I.A. No. 135045 of 2023 and W.P. (C) No. 301 of 2024, and requests the Punjab and Haryana High Court to expedite its decision in pending LPA 1951/2019.

Conclusion

By mandating structured reforms for Court Managers, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to enhancing judicial efficiency and upholding the rule of law. The judgment serves not only as a legal directive but also as a policy blueprint for judicial administration in India.