The Unfinished Symphony of Justice: Why India's Judges Might Soon Serve Longer

In a move that could, honestly, reshape the very landscape of India's High Courts, the Supreme Court has recently thrown open a fascinating, rather crucial, debate. And it all stems from a petition seeking to push back the retirement age for High Court judges — currently set at 62 — bringing it closer, perhaps, to the age limit of their Supreme Court counterparts, which stands at 65. The nation's highest judicial body, it seems, is now formally asking the Madhya Pradesh High Court registry to weigh in on this significant matter.

You see, this isn't just some administrative tweak; it's a profound discussion about experience, efficiency, and, dare I say, the very flow of justice. The petition, brought forth by Arun Kumar Mishra, a seasoned former district judge, articulates a compelling case. Mishra argues, quite convincingly one could say, that the current age ceiling of 62 for High Court judges feels, well, a bit 'discriminatory' and 'arbitrary' when viewed against the 65-year mark for Supreme Court judges. But the disparity doesn't stop there. Intriguingly, even the High Court's own staff often retires at 65. A peculiar imbalance, isn't it?

Mishra's plea goes beyond just parity; it taps into a deeper concern: the pervasive issue of vacancies plaguing our High Courts. Imagine, if you will, the bench strength being consistently short. It slows things down, doesn't it? Justice, they say, delayed is justice denied. And here's the kicker: extending the tenure would mean retaining a wealth of judicial wisdom and experience, instantly, and without the often lengthy process of new appointments. It’s a pragmatic solution, some might argue, to a very real problem.

Indeed, this isn't a completely novel idea. For once, the conversation around raising the retirement age has echoed through corridors of power for years. Back in 2009, the Law Commission, a venerable body, had already suggested this very change. And then, nearly a decade later, in 2018, the Parliamentary Standing Committee also chimed in with a similar recommendation. There was even a moment, a close call really, with the 114th Constitutional Amendment Bill in 2010, which sought to formalize this very extension. But, alas, it lapsed. So, this latest development, before a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, feels less like a new beginning and more like a revival of a critical, long-standing dialogue.

In truth, what's at stake here is not just a few extra years for individual judges. No, it’s about fortifying the bedrock of our justice system. It's about ensuring that the experience garnered over decades on the bench isn't prematurely retired, especially when our courts are grappling with overflowing dockets and a pressing need for skilled hands. The ball, for now, is in the Madhya Pradesh High Court's court, as it were. Their response, due within four weeks, will undoubtedly set the stage for what could be a transformative decision for the Indian judiciary.