You are here: Home » PTI Stories » National » News
Business Standard

SC finds view valid that post retirement appointment of judges at tribunals a scar

Topics
Law Crime

Press Trust of India  |  New Delhi 

The Supreme Court Wednesday said there is a valid "strong view point" that post retirement appointment of judges in tribunals is a "scar" on the "independence of judiciary".

A five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which is hearing as many as 18 petitions relating to challenges to the laws governing quasi-judicial tribunals, said that retired High Court judges are usually unwilling to man these panels as there was inordinate delay in appointments.

"There is a view point that post-retirement appointment is itself a scar on judicial independence of the judiciary. How do you handle that," the bench said, adding, "This is a valid and strong point".

Dealing with the issue of tribunalisation of judiciary, the bench, which also included Justices N V Ramana, D Y Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, said that it has been done to lessen the burden of the high courts and the situation of vacancies there was very grim.

The top court rued the huge vacancies in high courts and said even the high court collegiums are not recommending the names for the appointments.

"Let us not blame the government for every problem," it said.

"Look at the state of our high courts in terms of the number of judges. The whole idea of transferring the jurisdiction (to tribunals) was to lighten the burden," it said.

It said the total sanctioned post of judges in high courts are 1,089.

"How many are actually holding office. 397 is the number of vacancies. 264 are yet to be even recommended by high courts. When will they come. When will they be processed. When will the appointments be made. And by that time, how many more judges will have retired," the bench quipped.

It said that with this truncated strength, the high courts cannot take up more work.

"In some high courts, writ petitions are listed four weeks after filing. Here, in the Supreme Court, the matter comes up after four days and there is still mentioning," it said.

In one of the high courts, a bail application takes four weeks to be heard, it said, adding that the government has been setting up National Company Law Tribunals everywhere, but there are no presiding officers and members to man them.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear Reader,


Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

First Published: Wed, March 27 2019. 19:55 IST
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU