1)why do you think the judges of the supreme court were paid so highly ?
Answers
Answer:
A joint parliamentary panel has suggested doubling the salary of India’s members of Parliament from the current ₹ 50,000 per month (apart from allowances). If accepted, this would be the ninth increase in the salary of MPs in 50 years (since 1964) and the fourth in 15 years. While no one begrudges our hard-working MPs increasing their own pay, perhaps it is time for them to consider a salary increase for their brethren in black—the high court and Supreme Court judges.
It is a common refrain that judges in India are underpaid. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is paid ₹ 1 lakh per month, apart from allowances and perks; a judge of the Supreme Court and the chief justice of a high court can expect to make ₹ 90,000 per month. A high court judge can expect to make ₹ 80,000 a month. When compared with the annual per capita income ( ₹ 74,920 as of 2013-14), these may seem like substantially large amounts.
However, when compared with lawyers, whether in individual practices or in law firms, there is no dispute that judges are grossly underpaid.
No reliable study of senior advocates’ fees has been conducted, but some anecdotal evidence suggests that senior advocates at the Supreme Court charge at least ₹ 1 lakh per hearing, going up all the way up to ₹ 20 lakh or more depending on the experience and expertise of the senior counsel. In effect, senior advocates make within the course of a hearing what judges make in a whole month, if not more.
The salaries of high court and Supreme Court judges were initially fixed in Schedule II of the Constitution and could only be increased by a constitutional amendment. Since 1986, after the 54th Amendment of the Constitution, they are governed by parliamentary law, namely the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958.
Since India became a republic, high court and Supreme Court judges’ salaries have increased only thrice in 65 years.
The salaries of judges were roughly doubled in 1986, tripled in 1998 and tripled once again in 2009 (with retrospective effect from 2006).
Expand
While it would seem that the increases have been substantial, if somewhat infrequent, what is surprising is that salaries of judges have not kept pace with inflation and when adjusted for inflation, Supreme Court and high court judges actually make less now than what they did in the 1950s.
This view was expressed by senior advocates just before the previous raise in judicial salaries in 2008, and is now confirmed by data, even after the increase in salaries.
To compare the value of a rupee in the 1950s to the value of a rupee today, Siddharth Singh, an economist and researcher with the Centre for Research on Energy Security at The Energy and Resources Institute, has prepared a composite inflation index for us on the basis of government data on inflation, taking multiple sources together. We have used this composite index to compare the value of the rupee across the years from 1957-58 (the first year for which data was available) to the current date.
Compare this with the fact that in this time period, there have been six Pay Commissions that have revised salaries for central government officials, keeping in view inflation, and as mentioned earlier, the salaries of MPs have been increased no fewer than eight times.
Expand
If we compare the difference between the salaries that judges, MPs and secretary-level officials of the government should have got if their salaries just kept pace with inflation, and what they actually got, we see that the increases for MPs have kept well ahead of inflation while judges and secretaries’ salaries have not.
However, if we keep 1998 as the baseline, we find that the salaries of MPs, judges and secretary-level officials have actually kept pace with inflation, thanks to the massive hikes.
Expand
Even then, the salaries of MPs have increased at a much higher rate than those of judges or secretary-level officials in the government.
To be fair, the salaries of judges and MPs are buttressed by fairly substantial allowances, including a “reasonable" travel allowance, a car with up to 200l of fuel per month, and a “sumptuary allowance" of between ₹ 12,000 and ₹ 20,000 for high court judges and the CJI.
In addition, high court and Supreme Court judges and MPs are also entitled to the perk of free housing.
MPs, in contrast, have a “constituency allowance of ₹ 40,000 per month, are allowed “office expenses" of ₹ 40,000 a month, and a “daily allowance" to attend Parliament or committee meetings of ₹ 2,000 per month.
In the 1950s, the judges’ much higher initial salaries than the MPs’ were indeed clearly aimed at attracting the best talent from the bar. But over the years, given inflation and the increasingly lucrative nature of private practice at the bar, the salaries on offer seem to have become a deterrent rather than an attraction to take a post on the bench.
Ans
Explanation
Because the supreme court is the highest court and their responsibility is also high, that's why they are paid so highly.
hope it helps!!