Read Time: 04 minutes
The PIL submitted that a judge deciding highly controversial cases in favour of the government right before accepting a post-retirement job, even in the absence of any direct quid pro quo, would indicate at the institution being compromised
Supreme Court has dismissed a plea filed by Bombay Lawyers Association seeking a two-year cooling-off period for retired judges of before they accept political appointments.
A bench of Justices SK Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed thus, while dismissing the plea,
"The issue whether a retired Judge should accept any office or not has to be left to the conscience of the Judge concerned, or any law in this regard brought into force but cannot form a subject matter of directions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India."
Court further observed that it cannot go into the issue of whether an ex-judge can get elected to the Lok Sabha or nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
Notably, the bench was told that the absence of such a provision was creating a misconception in the public mind.
To this, the bench asked, "What is a political appointment? It is all frivolous. It is up to the judge to say whether he wants to decline or does not decline".
Court added that it could be later asked to decide whether a retired judge should take up a job at a tribunal after retirement or not.
The petition submitted that the acceptance of political appointments by Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts after retirement without any cooling off period would adversely effect public perception about independence of judiciary.
"This is because some judges are offered post-retirement employment by the government. 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", added the plea.
The instant plea was filed through AOR Manish Kumar Gupta.
Case Title: BOMBAY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA
Please Login or Register
