Controversies around appointments of judges post-retirement have been a recurring one.
The judiciary needs a firm mechanism to regulate the issue of post-retirement government appointments.
In law, justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.
What are the notable instances?
Recently, Justice A.K. Sikri, a well-regarded judge of the Supreme Court of India, accepted a post offered by the government while being a judge of the court.
But controversy erupted over it and so he turned down the offer.
Many judges and Law Commission members have for long denounced the act of judges accepting post-retirement jobs sponsored by governments and have called for an end to it.
But unfortunately, Justice M.C. Chagla, who advocated this, violated the very same.
After retirement, he accepted a government appointment to serve as Indian Ambassador to the U.S. (1958-61) and later as Indian High Commissioner to the U.K (1962- 1963).
He also served as Education Minister (1963-66) and then as Minister for External Affairs (1966-67).
What are the observations in this regard?
Law Commission had consistently maintained that judges accepting employment under the government after retirement was undesirable.
It had felt that this could affect the independence of the judiciary.
A Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy's study pointed out that as many as 70 out of 100 Supreme Court retired judges have taken up some or the other assignments.
These include those in National Human Rights Commission, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Armed Forces Tribunal, and the Law Commission of India, etc.
It is largely observed that tribunals are getting to be havens for retired judicial persons.
This could result in decisions being influenced if the Government itself is a litigant and appointment authority at the same time.
What is the complexity?
Unlike abroad, a judge of the higher judiciary in India retires at a comparatively young age.
So s/he is capable of many more years of productive work.
The valuable experience and insights that competent and honest judges acquire during their service period cannot be wasted after retirement.
But government-sponsored post-retirement appointments are likely to be looked upon with suspicion.
As the saying goes, in law, justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.
What should be done?
The viable option is to expeditiously establish a commission, through a properly enacted statute.
It should be made up of a majority, if not exclusively, of retired judges to make appointments of competent retired judges to tribunals and judicial bodies.
But for the time being, the Supreme Court can invoke its power to provide an interim solution till a legislation is passed in this regard.
It should put in place a process to regulate post-retirement appointments for judges, which ensures judiciary's independence.
