Supreme Court Rejects PIL on Two-Year ‘Cooling Off’ Period for Retired Judges Before Accepting Political Appointments
In a significant development, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a mandatory two-year ‘cooling off’ period for retired judges of constitutional courts before they could accept post-retirement political appointments.
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, was hearing the plea filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association. The association’s objective was to uphold
“the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law, and the principles of reasonableness”
and to preserve the core tenets of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners contended that judges accepting political appointments post-retirement was a potential violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Advocate Ahmad Abdi, representing the lawyers’ body, highlighted the potential misconceptions that could arise when a judge accepts a post-retirement position from the government. He argued,
“These kinds of political offers made by the executive are the issue. After deciding on these sensitive cases, if the judges accept an appointment from the government after their retirement, what impression is created on the public? This is pricking our conscience because we face it day in and day out.”
Justice Kaul responded sharply, suggesting that if there was a need for such a law, the government should enact it. He further questioned the ‘public interest’ of the litigant, pointing out the specific mention of retired Justice S Abdul Nazeer in the petition, who was appointed the governor of Andhra Pradesh shortly after his retirement.
The petition emphasized the importance of the judiciary’s independence, stating,
“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 only statute book as dead letters.”
The plea further elaborated on the potential harm to the judiciary’s perception, noting,
“The acceptance of political appointments by Judges of this Hon’ble Court and High Courts after retirement without any cooling off period is adversely affecting public perception about the independence of the judiciary… 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.”
However, the bench remained resolute in its stance, with Justice Kaul stating,
“The issue of whether a retired judge should accept any office has to be left to the better sense of the judge concerned, or a law has to be enacted, which cannot be a subject matter of this court’s directions under Article 32 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.”
This dismissal comes in the backdrop of the appointment of retired Supreme Court judge S Abdul Nazeer as the governor of Andhra Pradesh shortly after his retirement, reigniting debates about post-retirement positions stemming from political patronage and their potential impact on the independence of the judiciary.