A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India to quash the retirement age of 65 prescribed for a Supreme Court judge under Article 124..The petition has been filed by Law student Vibhor Anand, who has contended that though the qualification for appointment of Attorney General is the same as that of a Supreme Court judge, 10 out of the 13 previous Attorney Generals have been above the age of 65. This, the petitioner has contended is a violation of the rights of Supreme Court judges under Articles 14 and 16..Challenging Article 124(2), the petitioner has contended that.“That the procedure adopted by the govt.since 1950 in appointment of the Attorney General Of India under Art. 76(1) by appointing persons above the age of 65 years is completely arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of the citizens/ legal professionals/ sitting judges to have a tenure beyond the age of 65 years..That 10 out of 13 previous Attorney Generals of India appointed had crossed the age of 65 years before such appointment or during their tenure as the Attorney General. These appointments violates Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the constitution.”.Anand has also assailed Article 124(2A) which provides for increase in the age limit of the tenure of the Judges of the Supreme Court. Article 124 (2A) states that “the age of a Judge shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law provide’. Anand has contended that the Constitution of India as it originally stood was completely silent on the increase in the retirement age of Judges of the Supreme Court and Article 124(2A) was inserted by the Parliament in 1963 by 15th Amendment..He has contended that.“That by simple reading of Article 124 (2A), it means that the age of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by an authority created a law enacted by the Parliament, However, even after 52 years of passing of this amendment, the Parliament has not shown any interest or signs or willingness to create any such authority as mandated by Article 124 (2A), thus making it crystal clear that the above mentioned amendment was passed with the only motive and intention to abrogate the Independence of Judiciary which is the Basic Structure of the Constitution.”.Arguing that many eminent jurists could not serve the nations “for a much longer period” due to the “arbitrary retirement clause of Art. 124(2)”, Anand has prayed for declaring the age limit of 65 years for the Judges of the Supreme Court of India under Article 124 (2) unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 & 16(1). He has also prayed for declaring Article 124(2A) as unconstitutional..Anand had earlier filed petitions seeking inquiry into the laptop scam involving Delhi judges and also for declaring appointment of Mukul Rohatgi as Attorney General void.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India to quash the retirement age of 65 prescribed for a Supreme Court judge under Article 124..The petition has been filed by Law student Vibhor Anand, who has contended that though the qualification for appointment of Attorney General is the same as that of a Supreme Court judge, 10 out of the 13 previous Attorney Generals have been above the age of 65. This, the petitioner has contended is a violation of the rights of Supreme Court judges under Articles 14 and 16..Challenging Article 124(2), the petitioner has contended that.“That the procedure adopted by the govt.since 1950 in appointment of the Attorney General Of India under Art. 76(1) by appointing persons above the age of 65 years is completely arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of the citizens/ legal professionals/ sitting judges to have a tenure beyond the age of 65 years..That 10 out of 13 previous Attorney Generals of India appointed had crossed the age of 65 years before such appointment or during their tenure as the Attorney General. These appointments violates Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the constitution.”.Anand has also assailed Article 124(2A) which provides for increase in the age limit of the tenure of the Judges of the Supreme Court. Article 124 (2A) states that “the age of a Judge shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law provide’. Anand has contended that the Constitution of India as it originally stood was completely silent on the increase in the retirement age of Judges of the Supreme Court and Article 124(2A) was inserted by the Parliament in 1963 by 15th Amendment..He has contended that.“That by simple reading of Article 124 (2A), it means that the age of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by an authority created a law enacted by the Parliament, However, even after 52 years of passing of this amendment, the Parliament has not shown any interest or signs or willingness to create any such authority as mandated by Article 124 (2A), thus making it crystal clear that the above mentioned amendment was passed with the only motive and intention to abrogate the Independence of Judiciary which is the Basic Structure of the Constitution.”.Arguing that many eminent jurists could not serve the nations “for a much longer period” due to the “arbitrary retirement clause of Art. 124(2)”, Anand has prayed for declaring the age limit of 65 years for the Judges of the Supreme Court of India under Article 124 (2) unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 & 16(1). He has also prayed for declaring Article 124(2A) as unconstitutional..Anand had earlier filed petitions seeking inquiry into the laptop scam involving Delhi judges and also for declaring appointment of Mukul Rohatgi as Attorney General void.
