Today(on 23rd April)Supreme Court Bar Association President urges Prime Minister Modi for amendments enabling the appointment of sitting judges to tribunals and commissions, aiming to address concerns about judicial impartiality post-retirement.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 23rd April), Adish C. Aggarwala, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has penned a letter to Prime Minister Modi, urging amendments to statutes to allow sitting judges, rather than retired ones, to be appointed to tribunals and commissions. This proposal seeks to alleviate concerns surrounding the impartiality of judges and the public perception of their rulings when appointed post-retirement.
Adish C. Aggarwala expressed his views on the matter, stating-
“I want to emphasize the impact of appointing retired judges from the Supreme Court and high courts to lead and serve on commissions, tribunals, and similar roles by the government. This practice affects public perception regarding the impartiality of these judges and the judgments they made while in office. Given that the government is a major litigant in court, including cases involving ministers and politically influential individuals, it’s crucial for the judge presiding over a case to be viewed as an unbiased referee who remains impartial and inaccessible to either party.”
ALSO READ: 161 Bar Association Members asked for SCBA President’s Removal Over Farmers’ Protest
Aggarwala emphasized the need to avoid speculations regarding favoritism towards the government after retirement, stating-
“When a judge is selected by the government for a position immediately after retirement, it raises questions about whether the judge’s decisions while in office were influenced by a desire to curry favor with the government in anticipation of such post-retirement appointments.”
Aggarwala also noted that the practice of appointing retired judges to these roles commenced in 1988, under the Congress Party’s administration. He highlighted that the establishment of consumer courts and human rights commissions, governed by the Consumer Protection Act and the Protection of Human Rights Act respectively, led to the appointment of retired judges to head these bodies. Presently, a substantial number of retired Supreme Court judges, chief justices, and high court judges are overseeing commissions and tribunals nationwide, appointed by both central and state governments.
To address these concerns, Adish Aggarwala emphasized the necessity of amending the statutes to change the eligibility requirement from a retired judge to a sitting judge or practicing lawyer. He highlighted the fact that out of the 21 judges who retired from the Supreme Court between January 2008 and 2011, 18 were assigned to various commissions and tribunals.
Aggarwala further argued that the Constitution itself allows for the direct appointment of advocates as judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, suggesting that advocates should also be considered for heading tribunals and commissions.
In addition to these recommendations, Aggarwala proposed extending the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 years to 68 years and that of High Court judges from 62 years to 65 years. This measure aims to make better use of the services of experienced judges in courts for longer periods.
Furthermore, Aggarwala drew attention to another concerning phenomenon within the legal profession and judiciary, where judges who resign or retire from their posts often join active politics. He cited the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the United Nations Congress and endorsed by its General Assembly on September 6, 1985.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Initiates Steps to Strengthen and Streamline Bar Association Across India
In accordance with these principles, judges are entitled to the same freedoms as other citizens but are expected to “conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the dignity of their position and maintains the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”
