In a right institutional setup, the judicial decision-making is not affected by post-retirement appointments. Comment.

An independent and impartial judiciary is sine-quo-non for a democracy. Article 124(7) of the constitution debars a judge from pleading before any court/tribunal post retirement.

Rationale behind it:

  • Prevent quid-pro-quo, i.e. give and take between executive and judiciary.
  • Ensure impartial functioning of judiciary.
  • Check executive or outside influence on decisions.
  • “Justice should not only be done but also seen to be done”.

Apart from the constitutional provision, constitutional convention has also developed preventing judges from immediately opting for political/executive post after retirement.

  • For instance, Administrative reforms commission recommended cooling-off period.
  • Position consistent with other constitutional post like UPSC chairman, who is debarred from subsequently holding any government post.
  • Previously, judges who held post after retirement did after adequate cooling-off period to remove any doubt of partiality.
  • However, nomination of former chief justice Ranjan Gogoi to Rajya Sabha has raised concern. He delivered landmark judgement in favour of government including Ayodhya verdict.

Way forward:

Post-retirement jobs raises serious concerns over judicial independence and hence, must only be opted after sufficient cooling off period in accordance with well established past practice.

Originally written on August 30, 2023 and last modified on October 27, 2024.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *