Constitution of India · Part VI: The States · Application of certain provisions relating to Supreme Court
Article 221: Salaries, etc., of Judges
In plain words
High Court Judges receive salaries fixed by Parliament by law, or until then as in the Second Schedule. Their allowances, leave and pension rights are also set by Parliament or the Second Schedule, and cannot be changed to their disadvantage after appointment.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
[(1) There shall be paid to the Judges of each High Court such salaries as may be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that behalf is so made, such salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule.]
(2) Every Judge shall be entitled to such allowances and to such rights in respect of leave of absence and pension as may from time to time be determined by or under law made by Parliament and, until so determined, to such allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule:
Provided that neither the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect to leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the official text of the Constitution of India. As amended up to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Text as on 10 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the article 221
-
Justice Shailendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(1) Whether Judges of the High Court appointed from the District Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident Fund (GPF) on the basis of their previous service under the New Pension Scheme (NPS); and…
-
Union of India, Ministry of Law & Justice v. Justice (Retd) Raj Rahul Garg (Raj Rani Jain) and Others
Whether gap between the retirement of a District Judge and her subsequent appointment as the Judge of the High Court would constitute ‘break in service’ adversely affecting her pensionary and other retirement benefits.
- All India Judges Association v. Union of India
- K. Sreedhar Rao v. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi
- Lok Prahari, Through Its General Secretary S. N. Shukla & Another v. Union of India Through Its Secretary & Others
- Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Another v. Union of India
- The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Maharashtra v. S.C. Malte & Ors.
- State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others
- Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
- Justice P. Venugopal v. Union of India and Ors.
- Union of India v. Justice (Retd.) S. N. Saxena and Ors.
- Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.
- V.S. Mallimath v. Union of India and Anr.
- Mr. Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwala v. Union of India and Anr.
- Union of India v. Pratibha Banerjee and Anr.
- Union of India v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) and Vice Versa
- Ghan Shyam Das Gupta and Anr. v. . Anant Kumar Sinha and Ors.
- M.L. Jain v. Union of India
- Union of India v. Gurnam Singh
- V. B. Raju v. Unlon of India & Others
- Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth and Anr.
- Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra
- R. L. Narasimham v. Union of India
- Kalyan Singh v. State of U. P.