It appears that a politically motivated group is lobbying to increase the retirement age for Supreme Court and High Court Judges by 3 years. If they succeed, SC and HC judges would retire at 68 and 65 respectively.
Media reports state that a politically motivated group is lobbying to increase the retirement age for Supreme Court and High Court Judges by 3 years. A Supreme Court report indicates a shortage of 4 judges in the Supreme Court and about 265 judges at the various High Courts, and a disproportionately increasing burden on the courts. These vacancies may take atleast 3 -4 years to be filled and sources tell us that this move is an arrangement may reduce the burden on the courts.
The Constitution Review Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India, M.N. Venkatachaliah [pictured], had recommended that Supreme Court Judges retire at 68 and High Court Judges at 65. However, Justice Venkatachalaiah has a divergent personal opinion. He told Bar & Bench, “Earlier the High Court Judges used to retire at 60 and later it was increased to 62. There is no justification or philosophical underpinning as to why one cannot continue till 65 or 68 years. My personal view is that the retirement age for the Supreme Court Judges and the High Court Judges has to be same.”
A consultation paper prepared by Justice Jeevan Reddy, one of the Members of the Constitution Review Committee had also recommended that the age of retirement for the Supreme Court and High Court judges should be the same. “The reason given in support of this view is that some judges/chief justices of High Courts, who are about to retire, seek to be elevated to the Supreme Court lured by the attraction of three more years in office; that they hardly have sufficient time to make a contribution,” said Justice Reddy.
Raising the age limit will require amending Article 124(2) of the Constitution of India, by a two-thirds majority in the Parliament. If the Constitution were amended before May 2012, the Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, would then be the Chief Justice of India for an additional 3 years and would retire in May 2013. Chief Justice Balakrishnan will then become the second longest serving Chief Justice after Justice Chandrachud who served as the Chief Justice for 7 years and 5 months.
Most states in the USA peg the retirement age for judges at 70. Now there is a move to increase the retirement age to 73 in the Virginia Supreme Court. Judges for the Supreme Court of the United States of America are appointed for a life tenure, terminating upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, of the Supreme Court of United States, presided till the age of 81. In several countries the retirement age for Judges are well over 65. In Canada, they retire at the age of 75, while Australian, Tanzanian and South African Judges retire at 70. In Germany Judges retire at 68. Pakistan has an age limit similar to that of India, with their Supreme Court Judges retiring at 65.
If the lobby succeeds, then a Supreme Court Judge would retire at 68, and a High Court Judge at 65.
Comments
Manas
February 24, 2010 - 5:22amInteresting news! Keep it flowing.
shishir prakash...
March 3, 2010 - 5:45pmI endorse the view of Justice Venkatachaliah. Instead of appointing New and Novice judges it is good for the institution to have experienced and knowledgeable judges.
P. Selvakumar
March 6, 2010 - 7:07amThe view of the Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah is acceptable if we take it as positive way, but, selection of judges in High Court levels are not only on merrit, experience, clean hand and on honesty basis. This kind of corruptive judges damaging the justice delivery systems in the Indian Courts. it is most dangerous to both the common Public and the judiciary. So, before taking steps on this issues,corruption in higher judiciary has to be eradicated without further delay. it will be safe and secure for the upcoming Super Power India among the other countries.
anupam bhatt
March 8, 2010 - 9:54pmno. i think , chances has to be given to new persons
narayanam srivastava
May 12, 2010 - 9:15pmit is vary good
omprakash mallick
January 18, 2011 - 6:11pmit's very good
Rakesh Halder
November 29, 2012 - 5:58amI am fully satisfy from jeevan Reddy suggestion he support on right way, and i am with you
Guest
February 24, 2010 - 11:34amWhy don't we consider the US system of appointment for life? Or lets say 70 / 75 as retirement age with no further permanent appointments to any Commission / Tribunal. Commissions and Tribunals can be headed by experienced District Judges ... that ways, even the Higher Judicial Services will have more to offer for meritocracy.
BIBHU KALYAN PA...
February 27, 2010 - 8:58pmthe retiral ages of judges should not increased particularly in india where huge intelectuals r in the q.
R. Brizmohan Singh
February 28, 2010 - 2:32pmThe life expectancy in India is increased what with latest advancement in Medical Technology and Medicine but Judges cannot be an exception for increase in retirement age leaving other cadres and employments.
Satyam
March 1, 2010 - 2:05pmIt is a good step forward. In that case, the retirement age of officers of lower judiciary should also be increased from 58 to 62 years so that their experience is not wasted in vain.
Kapil Sonawane
March 1, 2010 - 3:49pmGovt. (politicians) by raising their demand is willing to show that they are not interested to fill up the vacancies as they have no time to do it. Apart from that it's point to think that the person seating in the chair of the Judge is the Human being first and then he is a Judge. so the question arises as at the age of 65 or 68 will he is able to act in a full fledged manner with the same capacity and efficiency as he had in his 55-60's.Kapil SonawaneAdvocate, Pune.
Pradeepta Mishra
March 1, 2010 - 6:02pmAs age has got nothing to do with efficacy in a profession of advocacy so and so also age of retirement has no bearing upon the quality of justice delivery by a Judge. Be it 68 or 73 as happens in case of an American Judge raising the retiral limit can by no means or manner render any qualitative service to the beneficiary public. Public accountability of a Judge lies in the vital attitude above margins of commonality, conventionality and complacency. It is increasingly so, in the case of a HC or SC Judge who represents a 'Court of Equity'. However short-lived His Lordship's tenure might be if he is intent on equitable justice while taking care not to mete out injustice to any approacher to the 'Court of Law'he shall prove his potentiality. On the contrary, if any ordinary human bondage reigns over one's judicial state of mind the volume of tenure may absolutely not serve the desired purpose. Thus, the proposition is wholly not plausible.
Advocate Sandee...
March 2, 2010 - 11:23amIt is seen that judges who carry volumes of knowledge and experience [Justice S. C. Dharmadhikari, Justice S. B. Mhase [both from Bombay HC] eminent Judges, who have made land marks in legal field] have to be retired. Depriving the Judiciary of such great Jurist is a heavy toll even for the Country. One has to agree that there is nothing called age factor for knowledgeable and intelligent persons. The fear of others in “qâ€, can be solved by open system of appointment, track record check in imparting legal dimensions, and solvers of legal hassles, while as Judge. That apart one cannot forget that retiring judges are the best. Its high time that experience should be both honoured and utilised. However the SC Judge is in no way superior to HC Judge, or put it other way, the HC Judge is no way inferior to SC Judge; so there should not be any discrimination between tenure for both. The life time appointment is best and need of time too.
Dharmapal Dave
March 2, 2010 - 10:21pmI totally agree with the opinion of justice M.N. Venkatachaliah .
Add new comment