Age and experience are valuable, and due to the rising lifespan, they are available in plenty. Retired judges have many avenues, as also the retired bureaucrats.
In fact, they vie with each other for posts in commissions and tribunals, sometimes leading to bitter rivalries and heart-burns. The judgement of the Supreme Court delivered last week in V K Majotra vs Union of India reflected these sentiments and the apex court had to rein in the Allahabad High Court, which gave a decision entirely in favour of their brethren.
The discord in the state was about appointments to the administrative tribunal. The issue landed before the high court. However, the high court, instead of disposing of the writ petition on the pleas raised, completely went off at a tangent and ruled that the vice chairman of the tribunal must have judicial background. This meant that the post should be given to a sitting or retired high court judge or an advocate who is qualified to be appointed as a high court judge.
The high court went further and applied the principles to other tribunals and appellate bodies all over the country. There are a number of tribunals in the country like the Central Excise Gold Appellate Tribunal(CEGAT), the board of revenue and the income tax appellate tribunal.
The high court wanted all these panels to be presided over by people with judicial background. This was necessary to maintain the confidence of the public in these institutions, and would be in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution, which states that the state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services.
Taking a pro-active stand, the high court directed the registrar to send the copies of its judgement to the Centre
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
