Judiciary

KEY POINTS

Arguments in favour

·         It will enable the judiciary to deal with the enormous pendency of cases.

·         Indian law permits retired judges to chair tribunals till the age of 70, which is proof of the persisting competence of experienced judges.

·         Retiring them early while their services can continue to benefit the mainstream judiciary is akin to losing experienced judges before their prime.

·         Enhancing retirement age will ensure the continued presence of experienced talent pool in the judiciary for longer periods.

·         Further, to better the ratio of judge-to-population, newer judges can also be appointed without displacing the experienced ones.

·         It will help in reducing arrears and would further be able to take on the impending “litigation explosion” that usually comes with economic growth.  

·         It will also render post-retirement assignments unattractive and thereby strengthen the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

·         The reasons for increasing the age of retirement of central government employees would apply to the HCs & SC judges as well.

·         These reasons include increased life expectancy, improved health standards, need for utilization of experience and wisdom of senior employees.

·         Retirement age of 70 for judges is common in most countries like - Belgium, Denmark, Australia, etc and Countries like the U.S., Greece and Austria appoint judges to their highest courts (or constitutional courts) for life.

·         In this scenario, it would be desirable for India to emulate the west and consider increasing the retirement age for judges in the HCs and SC.

Arguments against

·         An increase in the age limit would reduce competition between judges.

·         It reduces vacancies and deprives the opportunity of deserving and meritorious candidates, who are expected to help in speedy disposal of cases.

·         For a country like India, which is struggling with massive unemployment, it makes little sense to have a higher retirement age.

·         The average life expectancy at birth in India is merely 69 years, much lower as compared to the other developed countries.

·         Workload of Indian judges would be much higher as compared to judges in developed countries.

·         Hence it is pragmatic that judges retire at 65 years so that they are not overburdened at an older age.

Pls review my answer

Please review

Kindly review.

Please Review

Thank You