Mr. Chairman, Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my party’s views on this Bill. The Bill proposes to amend the old Acts of 1954 and 1958 and seeks to bring clarity on when Supreme Court and High Court Judges are entitled to an additional quantum of pension or family pension on attaining a certain age. I appreciate the Bill and the legislative clarification that this pension benefit to a retired Judge shall be provided from the first day of the month in which the Judge completes the age specified and not from the first day of his entering the age specified therein.
My
Party has no difficulty in supporting this measure. However, the title of120 this Bill refers to Salaries and
Conditions of Service of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This
points140 (1) to other
issues that could usefully have been addressed in this Bill, issues of
far greater importance to the democratic160
foundations of our nation. The Government should have considered using this
Bill to address and resolve critical issues of the Judiciary relating to
Conditions of Service such as matters of the retirement age of Judges,
particularly High Court Judges, and the implications of that for pendency of
cases in the courts. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any
plans to increase the retirement age of the Judges of the High Courts from 62
to 65 years240 to bring them
on par with the retirement age of the Supreme Court Judges who retire at 65.
There
have been important recommendations from experts to
this effect. In 2002, there was a recommendation that the retirement age of
High280 Court Judges be
increased to 65, though it also added (2) that the Supreme Court Judges
should retire at 68. Many140 people
felt that both the age limits should be the same. The UPA Government sought to
implement this recommendation320
through a Constitution (Amendment) Bill which provided for increasing the
retirement age of High Court Judges from 62 to 65. But unfortunately, the Bill could
not be taken up for deliberations and it lapsed on the dissolution of the
Lok360 Sabha in 2014. Even so,
the importance of this measure was subsequently reiterated again by the
Supreme Court which recommended in 2018 to increase the retirement age of the
Judges of the higher Judiciary to decrease the pendency of cases.
Despite
such measures offering at least a partial solution to the alarming
levels of pendency that plague our top courts,420
it is both surprising and worrying that the Ministry of Law and Justice has
declared that there is no proposal as of now, either to increase the
retirement age of (3) Supreme Court Judges from 65 to 67, or to bring
those of the High Court colleagues to an equal footing from 62 to 65 and
provide a uniform retirement age480
for Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court. This illogical position blatantly
contravenes the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice which has pointed out that
there is a need to revisit the age of retirement of High Court
Judges to compensate for the large number of vacancies existing in the
High Courts. Surely, the hon. Minister will agree that if we are
discussing Conditions of Service of Judges, we need to urgently560 address the most fundamental impediment
to the effective functioning of the Judges, and that impediment is the high
vacancy rate in judicial positions across the country.
This is the
problem that once drove a sitting Chief Justice of India to tears in600 front of the Prime Minister. But even
his tears appear (4) to have left the Government unmoved. As the old
legal cliché goes, justice delayed is justice denied. How can we expect justice
to be delivered in a timely manner640
when more than 400 posts of judges are currently lying vacant in 25 High Courts
around the country? In various High Courts of India, there are shortages of
more than one-third of the total strength of judges. This is not just an
issue that affects the citizens of a country for whom the process of seeking
justice has become a700
punishment in itself. It also holds worrying ramifications for the governance
of our nation. It will be a matter of grave720 concern for all of us in this House when
we recall the warning issued by the Supreme Court which pointed out that the
Government’s administration will also come to a standstill if vacancies in the
courts, and pendency of cases are not taken into consideration for immediate
remedial action. (5)
There
are more than four crore cases pending at all levels of judiciary in the
country. Between 2010 and 2020, pendency across all courts has grown by three
per cent annually.800 These
grim numbers clearly imply that even if no new cases were to be filed starting
from today, the time taken by the courts to dispose of just the currently
pending cases at the current disposal rate, would be840 more than one year for the Supreme
Court, and three years for each of the High Courts, and even longer for the
subordinate courts. Of course, we know the situation has been further
aggravated by the pandemic which has resulted in a 20 per cent increase in
pending cases in the High Courts and 13 per cent in the subordinate courts. We
all know that there is no chance that we can see a reduction in the rate at
which new cases are being added to the dockets of our courts. (6)
Respected
Chairman, if one were to draw a comparison with the international front, it can
be seen that the standard retirement age for judges is around 70 years.960 In some countries, in top courts, judges
are appointed for life. The judge-population ratio in India is 21 judges per
million980 population today, which
is among the lowest in the world. Countries like the United Kingdom have 51
judges per million people. The United States has more than 100 judges per
million population and Canada has 75 judges per million people. We should,
therefore, certainly look at the conditions of service of our judges, increase
their retirement age in order to fill vacancies for a longer period, and at the
same time, reduce pendency of cases. There are overwhelming reasons for this
Government to recognise that the establishment of a higher and uniform
retirement age for judges in our superior courts1080 would enable them to discharge their judicial duties
not just independently, (7) but also allow them to do their work without
worrying that they will have to step aside when they are in their prime. It
will also fortify the rule1120
of law and protect the fundamental right to speedy justice assured under
Article 21. The worst pendency of cases at all levels can, therefore, be
effectively tackled by increasing the number of working days available to a
judge by increasing his tenure.
It
will be considerate if the Ministry plans to address issues in increasing the
retirement age of judges and reducing the huge arrears of cases along with some
other vital challenges such as lack of transparency, particularly in1200 the appointment of judges, the long
detention of under-trials, and lack of information and interaction between
people and courts. Our objective should always be to strengthen the Indian
legal system and bring the best judicial benefits to the citizens of the
country. At the same time, in order to prevent an (8) overt
concentration of power in the hands of one1260
supreme institution, it would be wise to examine other practices that have been
found to have merit across the world.1280
For instance, we can establish multiple courts of appeal as has been proposed
recently by the hon. Chief Justice of India. India can certainly benefit from
the creation of four circuits of a Court of Appeal between the High Court and
the Supreme Court. Not only will such an arrangement go a long way towards
ensuring the distribution of power but will also facilitate regional
representation and access to the higher judiciary with four courts of appeal
situated in the North, South, West, and East of our country. These courts would
reduce the burden on the Supreme Court which could then truly function as a
constitutional court dealing only with cases carrying constitutional
implications.
Sir,
the reason that we are1400 (9)
discussing and debating proposals to strengthen our Judiciary even beyond
the one under consideration in this Bill, is that decent conditions of service
are a contribution to reinforcing the independence of the Judiciary and in
doing so, to strengthening democracy1440
itself. For instance, the earlier a Judge retires, the greater is his need for
a remunerative post-retirement activity and consequently, the greater is his or
her vulnerability to the blandishments of the Government of the day which might
be in a position to give him such a post-retirement job. Dr. Ambedkar said that
democracy should rest on the rule of law. While democracy focusses on who
exercises power, the rule of law determines how power is exercised. In fact,
these two concepts are so mixed that the United Nations General Assembly
recognised that human rights, the rule of law, and democracy are interlinked
and mutually reinforcing. We all know that disputes (10) are bound to
arise between citizens and governments. That is normal in any State.
This is where the Judiciary plays a pivotal role, settling disputes
independently in accordance with the principles of the rule of law under the
Constitution and that ensures that all individuals are equal before the law.1600
T
