SC refuses to entertain plea seeking uniform retirement age for judges

SC refused to entertain a PIL seeking uniform retirement age for judges of High Courts and the top court

Supreme COurt
Supreme Court | File photo
Press Trust of India New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Apr 12 2021 | 4:38 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a PIL seeking uniform retirement age for judges of High Courts and the top court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian asked the petitioner to approach the Union Government or the Law Commission of India with a representation.

Petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, an advocate and BJP leader, argued that the different age of retirements for judges of high courts and the apex court is irrational.

The bench then said, "we are dismissing it. You can make a representation."

Upadhyay then sought permission to withdraw the petition which was allowed.

The PIL stated that if there is uniformity in retirement age, the Judges of the High Court will discharge judicial work more independently and without any expectation to move to the Supreme Court.

Also, to minimise the apprehension of subordination between the Supreme Court and High Courts, it is appropriate to equate the retirement age of High Court Judge''s with Supreme Court judges, it said.

Contending that its irrational to have different retirement age for judges of constitutional courts, the plea filed by Upadhyay said increasing the retirement age and making it uniform i.e 65 years will not only strengthen the rule of law, but also secure the fundamental right of speedy justice, guaranteed under Article 21.

At present, the retirement age for the Supreme Court judges is 65 years whereas for the High Court judges, it is 62 years.

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 filed through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey said.

Uniformity in the retirement age is not only necessary to reduce pendency of cases but also essential to attract and retain the best legal talent in the bench, the plea said.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme CourtJudgesIndian Judiciary

First Published: Apr 12 2021 | 4:37 PM IST

Next Story