Plea In SC Seeks Cooling Off Period for Retired Judges to Accept Post-Retirement Appointments

There has been mounting criticism about retired judges accepting post-retirement sinecures. Following this a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a cooling off period of two years before any returned judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can accept a political appointment.

The petition was filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association with the objective of upholding the independence of the judiciary, rule of law and the principles of reasonableness as well as to save the democratic principles and the basic aim and object of the Indian Constitution.

Te petitioner association alleged a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21.

"Under Articles 32 and 226, the Supreme Court and the high courts enforce fundamental rights of the citizens as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. Being foundations of the democratic edifice of Indian society, both these articles have been declared by the apex court as part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Unless these constitutional courts are perceived by the citizenry as independent and impartial, and free from any kind of influence of the executive and any other form of economic, political and social considerations, the enforcement of fundamental rights would remain dead letters," the petition said.

The petitioners also spoke an out the recent appointment of former Supreme Court judge, Justice Abdul Nazeer as Andhra Pradesh governor. It is evident, the petitioner has claimed from the actions of the executive that the executive was not likely to bring any law prescribing a cooling off period for retired judges of the Constitutional courts before which they would be barred from accepting political appointments.

"An independent judiciary is responsible for upholding the rule of law which is considered as a prerequisite for a democratic form of government. That is why the independence of the judiciary has been declared as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, the acceptance of political appointments by judges of the Supreme Court and the high court after retirement without any cooling off period is adversely affecting public perception about the independence of the judiciary... The objective of the separation of power appears to be defeated if judges of constitutional courts accept political appointment just after their retirement," the petition said.

The petition also said, "the post-retirement appointment of judges may threaten or undermine judicial independence. This is because some judges are offered post-retirement employment by the government. It is often feared that a judge who is nearing retirement could decide cases in a manner that pleases the government in order to get a favourable post-retirement position. If a judge decides highly controversial and contested cases in favour of the government and then accepts a post-retirement job, even if there is no actual quid pro quo, would this not lead to the public perception that the independence of the judiciary is compromised."

There has been mounting criticism about retired judges accepting post-retirement sinecures. Following this a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a cooling off period of two years before any returned judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can accept a political appointment.

The petition was filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association with the objective of upholding the independence of the judiciary, rule of law and the principles of reasonableness as well as to save the democratic principles and the basic aim and object of the Indian Constitution.

Te petitioner association alleged a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21.

"Under Articles 32 and 226, the Supreme Court and the high courts enforce fundamental rights of the citizens as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. Being foundations of the democratic edifice of Indian society, both these articles have been declared by the apex court as part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Unless these constitutional courts are perceived by the citizenry as independent and impartial, and free from any kind of influence of the executive and any other form of economic, political and social considerations, the enforcement of fundamental rights would remain dead letters," the petition said.

The petitioners also spoke an out the recent appointment of former Supreme Court judge, Justice Abdul Nazeer as Andhra Pradesh governor. It is evident, the petitioner has claimed from the actions of the executive that the executive was not likely to bring any law prescribing a cooling off period for retired judges of the Constitutional courts before which they would be barred from accepting political appointments.

"An independent judiciary is responsible for upholding the rule of law which is considered as a prerequisite for a democratic form of government. That is why the independence of the judiciary has been declared as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, the acceptance of political appointments by judges of the Supreme Court and the high court after retirement without any cooling off period is adversely affecting public perception about the independence of the judiciary... The objective of the separation of power appears to be defeated if judges of constitutional courts accept political appointment just after their retirement," the petition said.

The petition also said, "the post-retirement appointment of judges may threaten or undermine judicial independence. This is because some judges are offered post-retirement employment by the government. It is often feared that a judge who is nearing retirement could decide cases in a manner that pleases the government in order to get a favourable post-retirement position. If a judge decides highly controversial and contested cases in favour of the government and then accepts a post-retirement job, even if there is no actual quid pro quo, would this not lead to the public perception that the independence of the judiciary is compromised."