INCREASING
RETIREMENT AGE OF JUDGES – POLITY
News: Justice Department says raising
judges’ retirement age may benefit non-performers
What's
in the news?
●
Increasing the retirement age of Supreme
Court and High Court judges could extend the years of service of non-performing judges and might have a
cascading effect with government employees raising a similar demand, the
Department of Justice has told a parliamentary panel.
●
It also said increasing the retirement age
of judges would be considered along with measures to ensure transparency and accountability in appointments to the higher
judiciary.
Retirement
age of Judges:
●
Supreme Court Judges - 65 years.
●
High Court Judges - 62 years.
Proposal
to increase the retirement age before:
1.
114th Amendment Bill:
●
The
114th Amendment Bill was introduced in 2010.
●
It aims to increase the retirement age of High Court judges to 65 years.
●
The Bill was not taken up for
consideration in Parliament and lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok
Sabha.
2.
NCRWC:
●
The Venkatachaliah
Report (Report of the National Commission to review the working of the
Constitution, 2002) recommended that the retirement age of the Judges of the High Court should be increased to 65 years and that of the Judges of the
Supreme Court should be increased to 68 years.
Why
to increase the retirement age of Judges?
1.
Rising cases:
●
To deal with the rising pendency of cases,
it is important to increase the number of judges.
●
There is a backlog of over 3.1 crore cases in Indian courts.
2.
International parity:
●
A retirement
age of around 70 for judges is commonplace in most Western liberal
democracies.
●
Example: In the Supreme Court of the
United States, and in constitutional courts in Austria and Greece, judges are
appointed for life.
●
In Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, the
Netherlands, Norway and Australia, the retirement age for judges is 70 years.
3.
Making judiciary accessible:
●
The judge-population ratio in India is
among the lowest in the world at 21
judges per million people as of today (compared to the UK’s 100).
●
It is also necessary to increase the
number of judges in the pool to enable the judiciary to deal with the enormous
pendency of cases.
4.
Serving longer tenures in tribunals:
●
Moreover, legislations provide for retired
High Court and Supreme Court judges to man tribunals till the age of 70 as
chairman and 65 as members.
5.
Growing economy:
●
As the Indian economy grows, the ratio of litigation to population is
expected to increase exponentially.
●
Advanced economies such as Australia,
Canada, France, the U.S., the U.K., and Japan has much higher
litigation-to-population ratios.
Significance:
●
It will address the problem of mounting arrears.
●
It will ensure the continued presence of a
strong talent pool of experienced
judges.
●
Faster
delivery of justice.
●
It will render post-retirement assignments unattractive and, as a consequence,
strengthen the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
●
It makes the judiciary able to take on the
impending “litigation explosion”
that usually comes with economic growth.
Concerns:
●
Increasing the retirement age of Supreme
Court and High Court judges could extend the years of service of non-performing judges.
●
Creating a cascading effect with the government employees, especially at
Central and State level, PSUs, commissions, etc, raising a similar demand
●
Deprive the performance of tribunals having retired judges as
presiding officers or judicial members.
WAY
FORWARD:
Increasing the retirement
age will certainly increase the number of judges to deal with rising cases, but
the Indian judiciary still needs
systemic reforms to address the mounting cases such as
●
Filling vacancy on time.
●
Ensuring transparency and accountability
in the appointment of judges.
●
Reducing the vacation period of judges to
make them to function more working days to deal with the cases.
●
Government - the largest litigant needs to
be more responsible.
●
Reducing the time for oral arguments
unless the case involves a complicated question of law.
●
Framing clear and decisive judgements to
avoid further litigation.
●
The courts should also seriously consider
incorporating technology into the system - digitizing courts records.
●
All India Judicial Service.
●
Fast track courts.
●
Promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution.