The apex court had sought the appearance of top bureaucrats from the states of Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Bihar, Haryana and Odisha.
On August 22, senior advocate K Parameshwar, amicus curiae in the matter, had contended before the top court earlier that as many as 18 states and UTs have not complied with the SNJPC recommendations fully, though several orders have been issued.
The bench had noted that its order had not been complied with and ordered the personal appearance of the topmost before it.
“They have to appear before us or we will issue non-bailable warrants (NBW) against them," the bench had said.
Many state governments, including of Tamil Nadu asked the court to allow the chief secretaries to virtually appear in the matter. However, the bench had said that the top bureaucrats would have to appear before it personally to explain the delay.
On July 11, the bench summoned the chief secretaries of 23 states for non-compliance with the SNJPC recommendations on August 23.
On August 8, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to examine the issues in connection with the meagre pension being given to district judges.
The court had then asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to sit together with the amicus curiae and find a way out.
"We, being the guardian of the district judiciary, urge you to do so," the bench told the top law officers.
The bench had said the district judges are only getting Rs 15,000 as pension.
