Rano
VIP
Why not have judges for life: Allahabad HC
Gives Centre two weeks’ time to respond
Chandigarh, July 7
The Allahabad High Court wants the Union of India to mull over the feasibility of having “Judge for life” in the high courts across the country and the Supreme Court. The directions by the Division Bench of Justices Uma Nath Singh and Devendra Kumar Arora came on a petition filed by lawyer Asok Pandey.
He was seeking directions to the Union of India and other respondents “to reconsider the prevailing policy of retirement of judges and introduce a Constitutional amendment bill in Parliament for providing the concept of the ‘judge for life’ on the pattern of developed democracies of the world”.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice Uma Nath Singh asserted: “On a careful consideration of rival submissions, we do not find the contentions of petitioner in person being totally devoid of substance.
“The age limit for retirement of the Judges of Supreme Court and high courts has not increased since the introduction/adoption of our Constitution, whereas for other services including the occupants of quasi-judicial posts like tribunals, it has increased considerably.”
Justice Uma Nath Singh added: “It is not understandable as to how the age limit for retirement of presiding officers and members of tribunals, who exercise quasi-judicial powers and are subject to the powers of superintendence as also the jurisdiction of high courts, can be higher than the age limit prescribed for the retirement of Chief Justices and Judges of high courts…
“The Framers of Indian Constitution have borrowed the Parliamentary Form of Democracy and concept of Rule of Law from Great Britain, and the Fundamental Rights and role of higher judiciary as the custodian of these rights and of the Supreme Court as the guardian of Indian Constitution from the Constitution of the USA.
“Thus, it may not appear to be an act of transgressing the Constitutional scheme, if the age limit for retirement of judges in the United Kingdom or the concept of no age limit for the retirement of judges of the Supreme Court of the US are adopted in our country.
“In the UK, the age limit prescribed for retirement of British Judges and Supreme Court Justices, has been fixed at 70, if first appointed to a judicial office after March 31, 1995, or at 75 otherwise.
“As regards the tenure of judges of the Supreme Court of the US, they hold their office during good behaviour, meaning thereby that they may serve for the remainder of their life, although they can voluntarily resign or retire.
“The submissions of petitioner in person that there should be no age limit for retirement of the Judges of Supreme Court and high courts, prima facie, deserve to be considered. “On the request of Assistant Solicitor-General, Union of India is granted 2 weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit within the premises set out, and rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter”.
Gives Centre two weeks’ time to respond
Chandigarh, July 7
The Allahabad High Court wants the Union of India to mull over the feasibility of having “Judge for life” in the high courts across the country and the Supreme Court. The directions by the Division Bench of Justices Uma Nath Singh and Devendra Kumar Arora came on a petition filed by lawyer Asok Pandey.
He was seeking directions to the Union of India and other respondents “to reconsider the prevailing policy of retirement of judges and introduce a Constitutional amendment bill in Parliament for providing the concept of the ‘judge for life’ on the pattern of developed democracies of the world”.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice Uma Nath Singh asserted: “On a careful consideration of rival submissions, we do not find the contentions of petitioner in person being totally devoid of substance.
“The age limit for retirement of the Judges of Supreme Court and high courts has not increased since the introduction/adoption of our Constitution, whereas for other services including the occupants of quasi-judicial posts like tribunals, it has increased considerably.”
Justice Uma Nath Singh added: “It is not understandable as to how the age limit for retirement of presiding officers and members of tribunals, who exercise quasi-judicial powers and are subject to the powers of superintendence as also the jurisdiction of high courts, can be higher than the age limit prescribed for the retirement of Chief Justices and Judges of high courts…
“The Framers of Indian Constitution have borrowed the Parliamentary Form of Democracy and concept of Rule of Law from Great Britain, and the Fundamental Rights and role of higher judiciary as the custodian of these rights and of the Supreme Court as the guardian of Indian Constitution from the Constitution of the USA.
“Thus, it may not appear to be an act of transgressing the Constitutional scheme, if the age limit for retirement of judges in the United Kingdom or the concept of no age limit for the retirement of judges of the Supreme Court of the US are adopted in our country.
“In the UK, the age limit prescribed for retirement of British Judges and Supreme Court Justices, has been fixed at 70, if first appointed to a judicial office after March 31, 1995, or at 75 otherwise.
“As regards the tenure of judges of the Supreme Court of the US, they hold their office during good behaviour, meaning thereby that they may serve for the remainder of their life, although they can voluntarily resign or retire.
“The submissions of petitioner in person that there should be no age limit for retirement of the Judges of Supreme Court and high courts, prima facie, deserve to be considered. “On the request of Assistant Solicitor-General, Union of India is granted 2 weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit within the premises set out, and rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter”.
