Mahima
The Supreme court rejected the PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking direction for amendment of the Constitution to increase retirement age of High Court judges from 62 years to 65 years.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian questioned, “You want judiciary to enhance its own age of retirement?”
Upadhyay contended that the High Courts and the Supreme Court are constitutional courts protecting the fundamental and constitutional rights of the citizens and therefore, there should not exist any disparity in the retirement ages of the judges of the institutions.
He further shared his personal experience, “I know of many finest advocates who have refused the offer of judgeship in the High Courts only because of early retirement age for HC judges”.
The bench remarked that successful lawyers should rather accept the invitation of becoming a High Court or Supreme Court Judge.
The CJI remarked, “If the successful and ‘finest’ advocates do not want to become Judges of constitutional courts, then there is something wrong in their mindset. And you call them finest advocates?”
The bench further inquired, “The Constitution providing for the retirement age of HC judges at 62 years and SC judges at 65 years has been operating smoothly since 1950. How do you term these Articles as irrational? Have you consulted the HC Judges to come to a conclusion that they want enhancement of retirement age to 65 years at par with the SC Judges?”
Upadhyay withdrew PIL on account of representing the same to the law ministry.
