New Delhi: The honourable Supreme Court of India, yesterday, denied to entertain a Public Interest Litigation, wherein the petitioners were seeking directions against the Central Government requiring that govt. to establish an authority for considering the increasing retirement age of the Apex Court judges who are currently superannuated at their age of Sixty- five years.
The decision has been adopted by the Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising of Chief Justice- T. S. Thakur, Justice- R. Banumathi and Justice- U. U. Lalit and while so they further sought to make it clear in their decision that the referring to the Constitutional Provision on the issue, the age of retirement of the Judges of the honourable Supreme Court can be seen settled in the Constitution of India itself and therefore the bench decided not to looked into the said issue.
Further the bench of the Top court decided that the Constitution of India itself is providing for the “authority” when there is a question or disputes in connection with the age of the judges.
In the petition, which was preferred by a petitioner- a law student- Vibhor Anand, it was seemed contending that the Constitutional provision was made years- back when the judges age was fixed at 65 years of their age, as it was considered that time as an “extremely old age due to insufficient medical facilities and Higher death rate”, however, as the present scenario is “completely changed” now life expectancy has “increased tremendously” due to better medical facilities. Moreover, it further shown in the petition that in the present times, the increase in the age of retirement of the Judges of the Supreme Court is “expressly needed” in the interest of public as they “could be benefited from vast experience they (judges) have gathered over the years”.
However, the bench sought not to consider the plea, and while rejecting to entertain the same, it has said that “We must appreciate your enthusiasm for us. Tell us, do you like to withdraw this,”, and as such, the counsel for petition withdraw the petition.
Adv. Faim Khalilkhan Pathan