posts for judges after retirement
i came across a speech by shri mahavir tyagi in the constitution assembly. is the issue relevant today? especially with regard to administrative courts or information commissioners.
"i submit that in the case of judges of the high court or the supreme court, the seats that they occupy are the seats of god. it is so said in the villages. the villagers say: 'the seat of justice is the seat of god'. the highest ambition of a man in any country therefore is to occupy the seat which is attributed to god. it has a great sanctity about it.
justice, in fact, does not depend on law. it is very strange that the british have created in the minds of people a sort of misgiving about justice. people have been made to think that a true interpretation of law is real justice.
it is not so. in fact justice is an eternal truth; it is much too above law. at present what the lawyers do is to shackle the free flow of godly justice. sir, the language used in the previous article in such that there is a possibility of laymen having godly qualities being appointed as justices. why should we always have lawyers as judges? i do not know. why should we presuppose that in future lawyers only will occupy the seats of judges? the provision for the appointment of judges says that the president, in consultation with the chief justice will appoint them. why should we take it that a judge shall always be a graduate in law? i think there is a good possibility of persons, who are otherwise fully qualified to administer justice, occupying the posts of judges and attain the highest ambition of their life.
it is wrong to think that the moment a non-lawyer is appointed a judge the dignity attributed to that post will be gone. my belief is that laymen would not only add to the dignity of this seat, but they would also make it more sacrosanct.
if after retirement from this high office, its occupants were allowed to aspire for worldly wealth after doing the work of god, after imparting justice, they would stultify both the office and themselves. sir, let me confess, i am opposed to the very profession of lawyers. they do not create any values or wealth. they attain knowledge of law and put their talents to auction or hire. sir, if lawyers were appointed as judges and after retirement they were also permitted to carry on their legal practice in courts, the result would be that they would stultify the great office of 'justice'; they would use these offices as spiring boards or ladders to build much more lucrative practice after retirement. i therefore submit that lawyers should not be permitted to have any practice in a court of law when they revert from the bench."
he continued " the present conception of justice does not appeal to me. the law courts at the present time are the nucleus and the fountain spring of all corruption, dishonesty and lies, and therefore the seats of judges are no more the seats of god in india. in our future set-up we should see to it that our courts achieve their old past glory and be not enslaved and dominated by "law". justice is a fact and law a mere fiction. justice is a reality and law is only a mode of its expression. let the man who is once appointed a judge, live a life of truthful glory. once a judge, always a judge. he must be content with his pension after retirement. if lawyers are ever appointed as judges they should not revert to practice because it is certain that if they do so they will use their posts as ladders for more practice".