SC refuses to entertain plea seeking uniform retirement age for judges

Supreme Court | File photo

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.)


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

Business Standard is now on Telegram.
For insightful reports and views on business, markets, politics and other issues, subscribe to our official Telegram channel