It is a measure of the divisive politics of our country that even valuable and tenable suggestions are shot down if they come from Opposition politicians regardless of how eminent they may be in their chosen field. Take, for instance, Arun Jaitley’s proposal that a “cooling-off” period of two years be imposed on judges after they retire from the bench, and before they are appointed to head tribunals or inquiry commissions.
His argument is based on the known existence of an unwelcome clamour for post-retirement jobs affecting the impartiality of the judiciary. However, barbs were aimed at such logic so speedily that it suggests the matter was being opposed only because of the speaker’s political affiliations.
Statistics that show 18 of 21 judges who retired from the Supreme Court since January 2008 have taken various postings hint at the live possibility of there being some apprehension over judges currying favour with the government for sinecures that would extend their perquisites and privileges. This is not to belittle the knowledge, expertise and wisdom of judges in dealing with various legal matters that are especially vital in postings as heads of human rights commissions that deal with a crucial issue of hapless individuals against the power of the state. If safeguards like a cooling-off period are put in place, no one will be able to point a finger at the conduct of the higher judiciary. That justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done still remains an important principle.