Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

Recently, the Gujarat High Court upheld the rule mandating compulsory retirement for district judges who exhibit non-performance or under-performance upon reaching the age of 50. 

In 2016, several district court judges, upon receiving pink slips upon turning 50, contested the validity of this rule. They argued that it contravened Article 311 of the Constitution, which guarantees security to permanent government employees. 

However, the bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee dismissed this argument. The bench highlighted the unique role of judges within the state's framework, noting that they represent the State and its authority, unlike other government service members. Judicial service, the court emphasized, transcends mere employment, as judges wield sovereign judicial power.

Various grounds were presented by the petitioners/judges to challenge the rule, including the limited time for judges to exhibit their performance, especially considering that judges are often recruited into the judicial service up to the age of 45. They argued that unlike other government employees, who typically have 15-20 years of service by the age of 50, judges should also be afforded adequate time to demonstrate their capabilities. However, the high court rejected this contention, maintaining the unique nature of judicial service compared to other government positions.

The high court reiterated the unparalleled expectations placed upon members of the judiciary, emphasizing the indispensability of morality, righteousness, purity, sincerity, and rectitude in their conduct. The court underscored that the standards for judicial officers far exceed those expected in other government services. Integrity, in particular, was highlighted as a cornerstone of judicial discipline, with judges being held to impeccable standards not only in their professional judgments but also in the transparency and purity of their personal character.

Moreover, the bench emphasized the essential qualities of competence and diligence required of judges. They stressed the importance of judges continuously updating themselves with changes in the law and consistently adhering to judicial ethics. Central to the judge's role is the trust and faith of the people, and thus, every judge must uphold a demeanor above reproach. Conscientiousness, studiousness, punctuality, impartiality, and adherence to the law were cited as fundamental attributes expected of judges, who must view their appointment as a public trust.

In essence, the Gujarat High Court's decision to uphold the compulsory retirement rule for non-performing or under-performing district judges at the age of 50 reinforces the exceptional standards demanded of members of the judicial service. This decision underscores the judiciary's vital role in upholding justice and maintaining public trust, emphasizing the imperative for judges to exhibit unwavering integrity, competence, and diligence in their conduct and decisions.

[Inputs: Times of India]