Judges' salaries can be cut anytime by the government if it wants to save money.

Article 125's proviso specifically prevents any reduction in a judge's privileges, allowances, leave rights, or pension after their appointment, though increases are allowed.

Judges' pay is entirely fixed forever by the Constitution and can never change.

The Constitution only provides default salary figures (Second Schedule) until Parliament passes a law; Parliament can and does revise salaries and benefits, but only upward for existing judges, not downward.

The Constitution of India

Article 125

Salaries, etc, of Judges

(1) There shall be paid to the Judges of the Supreme 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 privileges and 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 privileges, allowances and rights as are specified in the Second Schedule:§

Provided that neither the privileges nor the allowances of a Judge nor his rights in respect of leave of absence or pension shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.§

Why this exists

This provision protects judicial independence by ensuring judges' financial security is not subject to political pressure or arbitrary changes by the government of the day. By letting Parliament fix salaries through law (rather than executive discretion) and banning disadvantageous changes after appointment, the framers aimed to shield judges from any temptation or threat linked to their pay, allowing them to decide cases without fear of financial retaliation.

How courts read it

Courts have generally read this Article as reinforcing the separation of powers and judicial independence, treating financial security as a structural safeguard rather than a mere service condition. While there isn't one single landmark case solely interpreting Article 125, courts have referenced it alongside Article 50 and judicial independence principles in discussions about the judiciary's autonomy, and have been cautious to distinguish 'disadvantageous' changes (barred) from beneficial revisions (permitted), such as pension enhancements or salary revisions under Acts like the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Acts.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Judges' salaries can be cut anytime by the government if it wants to save money.
Fact: Article 125's proviso specifically prevents any reduction in a judge's privileges, allowances, leave rights, or pension after their appointment, though increases are allowed.
Myth: Judges' pay is entirely fixed forever by the Constitution and can never change.
Fact: The Constitution only provides default salary figures (Second Schedule) until Parliament passes a law; Parliament can and does revise salaries and benefits, but only upward for existing judges, not downward.