The Madras High Court today dismissed a PIL seeking to declare the Article 217 of Constitution prescribing the retirement age of High Court judges as 62 years as against the basic structure and feature of the constitution.
The First Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam, closed the petition filed by V B R Menon, an advocate, seeking a direction to formulate a new retirement policy for High Court Judges based on a comprehensive scientific study of medical, psychological and other factors.
The judges in their order said "we cannot appreciate the submission that age of retirement should be different for different judges, depending on their mental state of affairs at a specified age."
"This in turn would create chaos, as what is being proposed is consultation with the psychologists and doctors to determine the mental capacity of the judge and thereafter only to seek whether he should retire or not."
"We are thus unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that fixation of age under Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India is against the basic structure of the Constitution," the judges said.
Menon in his petition contended that the High Court Judges are retiring "at the peak of their ability and without the vacancies being filled in, with the result that the administration of justice suffers".
He contended that a judge should be allowed to function if he has the mental capacity to do so and that cannot be fixed by the legislature but would depend upon a case-by-case basis.
Stating that the matters such as longevity and medical facilities available may require re-consideration of the parameters of retirement age, the petitioner submitted that the retirement age fixation to a High Court Judge as 62 is arbitrarily fixed.
The bench, while appreciating the submissions of the petitioner, in its order said "we are of the view that this is not a matter which can be adjudicated judicially. The provision is constitutional in character and it is for the legislature to debate, with relevant inputs being obtained as to whether the age of retirement of High Court Judges should or should not be increased."
The bench then suggested that it can be forwarded to the Law Commission as well as the central government for consideration, rather than seeking any judicial adjudication of the issue and closed the petition.
