Context:

The article is about the judges who have received a high-profile political appointment soon after retirement.

• Within a month of retiring from the Supreme Court of India, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was appointed Governor of Andhra Pradesh. 

Issues with these High-Profile Appointments:

• Biasness: These appointments are all signaling on the part of the government, letting the members of the higher judiciary know that they will be suitably rewarded if they issue favorable decisions. 
• Corruption: Dangling such a proverbial carrot is akin to corrupting the judges, and encouraging a culture of sycophancy even, as we are seeing among some judges in the apex court. 
• Faith losing: Worse, this also makes the public have less faith in the judiciary itself. 
  • In 1980, Justice V. D. Tulzapurkar had said that “if judges start sending bouquets or letters to legislators on assumption of high office in adulatory terms, the people’s confidence in the judiciary will be shaken.”

Chipping away at Judiciary:

• Weakening of Judiciary: While a Governor’s position may seem largely ceremonial, it is in fact a squarely political appointment by the ruling party. Similarly, such steps of high profile appointments are slowly but surely being subtly weakened the judiciary.
• Ensuring Independence: The appointment and issue discussed is not for a very first time but rather to question who and when appointed, the larger objective, for any reasonable executive, should be to ensure the independence of the other arms of the governing mechanism and that democratic values are preserved. 

Hypocritical Behavior:

• The government’s behavior is also hypocritical for it is deliberately paying no heed to its own manifesto articulated by its late leader.
• The judiciary is no less culpable in this situation. Judges should show moral responsibility and character.
• The Indian judiciary must distinguish between political favors and other post-retirement employment opportunities.

Demarcation of roles:

• There needs to be a demarcation between roles where the presence of a judicial authority is clearly valuable and even necessary, such as in a tribunal or a commission, and where it is not. 

Examples:

• Justice Gogoi, upon his appointment to the Rajya Sabha, had famously proclaimed that he intended to bridge the gap between the judiciary and the legislature, but his attendance record and public participation in parliamentary affairs suggest nothing of the sort. 
• Justice Sathasivam had said he had wanted to serve the people in his role as Governor, but the wanted thoughts couldn’t take shape in practice.

Steps can be Considered:

• Ideally, the judicial community should take a concerted decision on this.The plenary should agree that judges should not take up any appointments upon retirement stemming from political patronage.
• A cooling period of about two years should be considered a mandatory minimum before a judge agrees to take on any post-retirement adjudicatory role.

Conclusion:

• Justice Y.V. Chandrachud had said that the greatest danger to the judiciary lies within. 
• Members of the judiciary cannot compromise independence by trading it for a plum post-retirement sinecure. 
• Judges need to be gently reminded of this unwritten contract they have with the Indian people.

News Source: The Hindu