The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a two-year cooling-off period before judges of the top court and the High Courts accept political appointments..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said the plea was frivolous, and that such matters are up to the individual discretion of the judge concerned."What is this? This is all frivolous. How can we stop someone from contesting an election? And Governor is a constitutional post. Tribunal appointments should also be stopped then? You do not want a particular person to become Governor that is all. All this we cannot get into," Justice Kaul remarked.The top court in its order noted,"Issue of a whether a judge should accept an appointment is left to the discretion of the judge concerned, or a law may be brought to regulate the same. Dismissed.".The Bench was hearing a plea filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association, filed through advocate Manish Kumar Gupta and drawn by advocate Ahmad Abdi..Apart from the main relief, the petitioners sought the interim relief that judges voluntarily not accept any political appointment in this regard for two years."Unless these Constitutional Courts are perceived by citizenry as independent and impartial, free from any kind of influence of the executive and any other form of economic, political and social considerations, the enforcement of fundamental rights would remain only statute book as dead letters," the plea stated.Expressing concerns over the ramifications such appointments may have on the independence of the judiciary, the petition stated,"The acceptance of political appointments by Judges of this Hon’ble Court and High Courts after retirement without any cooling off period is adversely effecting public perception about independence of judiciary...This is because some judges are offered post-retirement employment by the government. It is often feared that a judge who is nearing retirement could decide cases in a manner that pleases the government in order to get a favourable post-retirement position."When a judge decides highly controversial and contested cases in the government's favour right before accepting a post-retirement job, even in the absence of any direct quid pro quo, the institution stands compromised, it was contended..The petitioners had earlier filed a plea before the Bombay High Court seeking that Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar and then Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju be discharged from office for their remarks against the judiciary.The High Court dismissed the plea, and the said ruling was confirmed by the Supreme Court..The President of India had in February appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice S Abdul Nazeer as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, a month after he demitted office.Justice Nazeer was part of the Bench that delivered the historic Ayodhya-Ram Janmabhoomi judgment.Prior to that, former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha after his retirement.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a two-year cooling-off period before judges of the top court and the High Courts accept political appointments..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said the plea was frivolous, and that such matters are up to the individual discretion of the judge concerned."What is this? This is all frivolous. How can we stop someone from contesting an election? And Governor is a constitutional post. Tribunal appointments should also be stopped then? You do not want a particular person to become Governor that is all. All this we cannot get into," Justice Kaul remarked.The top court in its order noted,"Issue of a whether a judge should accept an appointment is left to the discretion of the judge concerned, or a law may be brought to regulate the same. Dismissed.".The Bench was hearing a plea filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association, filed through advocate Manish Kumar Gupta and drawn by advocate Ahmad Abdi..Apart from the main relief, the petitioners sought the interim relief that judges voluntarily not accept any political appointment in this regard for two years."Unless these Constitutional Courts are perceived by citizenry as independent and impartial, free from any kind of influence of the executive and any other form of economic, political and social considerations, the enforcement of fundamental rights would remain only statute book as dead letters," the plea stated.Expressing concerns over the ramifications such appointments may have on the independence of the judiciary, the petition stated,"The acceptance of political appointments by Judges of this Hon’ble Court and High Courts after retirement without any cooling off period is adversely effecting public perception about independence of judiciary...This is because some judges are offered post-retirement employment by the government. It is often feared that a judge who is nearing retirement could decide cases in a manner that pleases the government in order to get a favourable post-retirement position."When a judge decides highly controversial and contested cases in the government's favour right before accepting a post-retirement job, even in the absence of any direct quid pro quo, the institution stands compromised, it was contended..The petitioners had earlier filed a plea before the Bombay High Court seeking that Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar and then Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju be discharged from office for their remarks against the judiciary.The High Court dismissed the plea, and the said ruling was confirmed by the Supreme Court..The President of India had in February appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice S Abdul Nazeer as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, a month after he demitted office.Justice Nazeer was part of the Bench that delivered the historic Ayodhya-Ram Janmabhoomi judgment.Prior to that, former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha after his retirement.
