The role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is one of the most prestigious and respected positions within the Indian judiciary. Appointed as the head of the Supreme Court, the CJI has the responsibility of upholding the Constitution and ensuring the rule of law in the country. Given the immense power and influence that comes with this position, the question of what a CJI can do after retirement, particularly whether they can practice as an advocate, is an important one. This article delves into the legal and ethical implications surrounding this issue.
Constitutional Provisions
Article 124(7) of the Indian Constitution explicitly prohibits a retired Supreme Court judge, including the CJI, from practicing law in any court or before any authority within the territory of India. It states:
“No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.”
This provision ensures that once a person has served as a judge of the highest court in the country, they cannot return to the practice of law. The rationale behind this restriction is to maintain the sanctity and impartiality of the judiciary. Allowing a former CJI or any Supreme Court judge to practice law could create situations where their previous judgments, influence, or stature could be perceived as having an undue impact on the judicial process.
Why the Restriction?
1. Avoiding Conflict of Interest: The prohibition aims to prevent any conflict of interest that might arise if a former judge were to appear as an advocate in cases involving matters they previously adjudicated. It helps maintain the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, ensuring that there is no perception of bias or favouritism.
2. Upholding Judicial Dignity: A judge, especially at the level of the Supreme Court, holds a position of immense respect and authority. Post-retirement involvement in active legal practice could undermine this dignity. The restriction helps preserve the decorum and ethical standards expected of someone who has served at such a high level.
3. Preventing Undue Influence: Judges of the Supreme Court, especially the CJI, have access to sensitive and privileged information. Allowing them to practice law post-retirement could lead to situations where such information might be misused, or at least give the perception that it could be.
Alternative Roles After Retirement
While retired Supreme Court judges, including the CJI, are barred from practicing law, they are not prohibited from taking up other roles. Some of these include:
1. Arbitration and Mediation: Retired judges often take up roles as arbitrators or mediators in various disputes. This is because of their legal expertise and understanding of complex legal matters. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allows retired judges to be appointed as arbitrators, providing them a platform to continue contributing to the legal field.
2. Chairpersons or Members of Commissions: Retired judges frequently serve as chairpersons or members of various commissions and tribunals, such as the Law Commission of India, the National Human Rights Commission, or the National Green Tribunal. Their experience and expertise are invaluable in these roles.
3. Academia and Legal Education: Many retired judges contribute to the field of legal education by teaching in law schools, delivering lectures, or writing on legal issues. This allows them to impart their vast knowledge and experience to the next generation of legal professionals.
4. Public Service: Some retired judges are appointed to constitutional and statutory positions such as the Governor of a state or as heads of various governmental committees and commissions.
Ethical Considerations
The prohibition on practicing law also has ethical implications. The judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy, and its credibility depends heavily on the perceived and actual impartiality of its members. The restriction on post-retirement practice ensures that judges do not make decisions during their tenure with an eye on their future career prospects as advocates.
Moreover, it is important to note that while retired judges can take up roles in various quasi-judicial and administrative bodies, such positions should not compromise their previous judicial conduct. There have been debates over whether accepting certain positions could lead to allegations of favouritism or compromise the judge’s earlier decisions.
Criticism and Controversies
The issue of post-retirement roles for judges has been a matter of debate in India. Critics argue that the post-retirement appointments of judges to various commissions and tribunals could be seen as a “reward” for favourable judgments delivered during their tenure. This perception, even if not based in fact, could harm the image of the judiciary.
For instance, former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, was nominated to the Rajya Sabha shortly after his retirement, which sparked a widespread debate on the propriety and ethics of such appointments. Critics argued that such appointments could potentially undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s independence.
Conclusion
The prohibition on practicing law by retired Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India, is a well-thought-out provision aimed at preserving the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. It helps avoid conflicts of interest and maintains the dignity of the judicial office. While retired judges can still contribute to the legal and public sectors in various capacities, they must do so in a manner that upholds the high standards of ethical conduct expected of them.
As the judiciary continues to play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law in India, it is essential that the mechanisms and rules governing the conduct of its members, both during and after their tenure, remain robust and transparent. This ensures that the judiciary retains its credibility as an impartial arbiter in the eyes of the public.
