Retirement age of the Judges of the Higher Judiciary is juxtaposed with the independence of the latter

The Allahabad High Court’s directive to the Centre to explore the possibility of having “judges for life” in the higher judiciary deserves serious contemplations. It has profound bearing on the independence of higher judiciary in India. The retired judges of the higher judiciary are accommodated in government employment of some kind or other viz. membership or chairmanship of tribunals or statutory commissions or commission of enquiry etc. The lure of prospective office and associated perks and pelf may subject the serving judges to extraneous considerations and influences in the discharge of their duties that may be quite fatal for the independence of higher judiciary. In USA, a Judge of the Supreme Court holds office during good behaviour, which means that he can continue to occupy office for life. Although, he or she is at liberty to retire on attaining the age of seventy years and on completing ten years service at the Supreme Court. Even after retirement as distinct from resignation, they can be requested to join the bench to discharge judicial function periodically.
Moreover, the nature and stress of work is same for the judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Present position of difference in age of retirement has ample potential to inveigle the high court judges to curry favour with the Supreme Court’s collegium (entrusted with the function to make appointments and transfers in higher judiciary) to secure an extended tenure for three more years in the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, desirable that in this matter either the Indian Constitution should appropriately be amended on the line of the American Constitution or any how, the age of retirement of both the High Court and Supreme Court Judges be fixed at 70 years.

LAW MAKING W.R.T. MATTERS ENUMERATED IN THE CONCURRENT LIST

THE TRIBUNE, JULY 13, 2010, P. 8

New law
I read the editorial, “Reining in khaps: Hasten law on honour killings” (July 10). Both substantive and procedural criminal law is enumerated in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Article 246 empowers both Parliament and states’ legislatures to enact the law. However, under Article 254 of the Constitution, the Central law will prevail upon states’ law if there is any inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and the Legislatures of states in such matters. Nevertheless, the contention that “as the issue in question is sensitive involving deep social and religious sentiments, it would be legitimate on the part of the Centre to have wider consultation with the state governments” is in the fitness of things.
RAJENDER GOYAL, Bahadurgarh