Read Time: 09 minutes

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking Uniform Age of Retirement for Judges in Constitutional Courts.

A Full Bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian, while hearing the matter today, directed the petitioner to make representation to the Ministry.

The submission made by the petitioner was primarily threefold; Both High Courts and Supreme Court are Constitutional Courts, Both are Court of Record, Both have similar Oath, therefore there should be no disparity in the tenure of working.

It was also added that due to early retirement age, finest lawyers in the High Courts do not prefer to be elevated as Judges.

CJI, at this juncture, candidly remarked, They do not want to be elevated as a Judge and you call them the finest!

In the matter of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, petitioner approached the Top Court seeking directions for having same age of retirement for Judges at Constitutional Courts citing pendency, work autonomy, independence of judiciary and minimization of subordination between the Supreme Courts and the High Courts.

“Uniformity in the retirement age of Judges will create a pool of experienced judges in High Courts, which will be extremely useful for deciding the cases of extreme importance or which require deep and thorough knowledge for interpretation of the Constitution”, the plea states.

By the 15^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1963, the age of retirement for the judges of the High Courts is 62 whereas it is 65 for the judges of the Supreme Court.

“…being protector of right to speedy justice guaranteed under Article 21, the Court may use its plenary constitutional power to declare that the Judges of High Courts shall retire at the age of 65 years until Centre takes steps to reduce the pendency of cases from 15 to 3 years in spirit of the Resolution dated 25.10.2009”, the plea further states.

Cause of Action, as per the petitioner, arose on 25.3.2021 when the Law Minister Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad stated in the Rajya Sabha that there is no proposal to increase the retirement age of the Judges of High Courts. It is in this regard that the petitioner produces relevant dates and events when the present subject matter was discussed directly or incidentally;

“It is necessary to state that the Bill, to increase the retirement age of judges of High Courts was introduced in 2010 but lapsed in 2014 due to dissolution of Lok Sabha. It is also necessary to state that on 22.6.2019, the then CJI Justice Shri Ranjan Gogoi also wrote a letter to increase the retirement age of High Court judges to 65 years.”

The petition also discusses at length about pendency of cases, the reasons and the possible remedies, one of which is retaining the best legal minds for effective adjudication of disputes, as prayed for in the present PIL.

Points mentioned by the petitioner inter-alia includes;

1. Increasing the retirement age will not only strengthen the rule of law, which is an integral part of Article 14 but also secure the fundamental right to speedy justice guaranteed under Article 21.
2. Uniformity in the retirement age of Judges will ensure Independence of Judiciary in the Spirit of Article 50.
3. Right to justice is not a fact or fiction but a constitutional reality and it has to be given its due respect. If the administration of justice delivery system is to yield good results then the Courts have to act with greater promptitude.
4. Some judges of High Courts, who are about to retire, seek to be elevated to the Supreme Court lured by the attraction of 3 more years in office; that they hardly have sufficient time to make a contribution. If the age of retirement is made the same for both; the High Courts and the Supreme Court, only those judges who really wish to work with devotion, would like to come to Supreme Court.
5. In the UK, age of retirement for judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal is the same, namely, 75 years. Similarly, in India the uniform age of superannuation can be 65 years.

The Petition further makes a reference to Blue Print for Judicial Reforms: Strategic Initiatives 2009-2012, Representation to the Prime Minister on 29.6.2018 where the Centre did not take any steps in furtherance of the present subject matter and to another PIL [WP(C) 1236 of 2019], on a similar issue.