Post-Retirement Appointments of Judges in India: Implications for Judicial Independence and Public Trust

Abstract

This article examines the practice of appointing retired judges to political and administrative positions in India, analyzing its constitutional implications, impact on judicial independence, and potential reforms. It argues that post-retirement appointments create an “economy of influence” that may compromise impartiality and the separation of powers, raising concerns of institutional corruption where the prospect of future positions affects pre-retirement decision-making. The study highlights how these appointments erode public confidence in the judiciary and blur institutional boundaries, thereby undermining the very foundation of constitutional democracy. To address these risks, the article proposes a framework of reforms, including a mandatory cooling-off period, statutory restrictions on political office, enhanced transparency in post-retirement employment, and strengthened pension provisions. By balancing the need to preserve judicial independence with the value of utilizing judicial expertise in public service, the article advances the case for urgent structural reform in India’s constitutional practice.

Keywords: Judicial independence, post-retirement appointments, separation of powers, constitutional governance, institutional corruption, judicial reform.

Introduction

The appointment of retired judges to political and administrative positions represents one of the most significant challenges to judicial independence in contemporary India. This practice, which has become increasingly systematic over the past three decades, raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers, institutional integrity, and the Third year BALLB student at MMM’s Shankarrao Chavan Law College, Pune constitutional framework governing judicial conduct.Although the practice is more concerning in past few decades its start goes long back when Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali was appointed as Governor of Orissa (1952-1954) and later Governor of Assam (1956-1959).2

The Indian Constitution, while providing some restrictions on post-retirement activities of judges, contains significant gaps that have enabled the development of what scholars describe as an “economy of influence” between the judiciary and executive branches. This system creates incentives that may compromise judicial decision-making during active service, as judges anticipate potential post-retirement opportunities with the government.

This comprehensive literature review examines the multifaceted dimensions of this issue, analyzing constitutional provisions, historical patterns, institutional concerns, and international comparative experiences. The study draws from extensive academic literature, empirical research, case studies, and policy analysis to provide a thorough understanding of the challenges and potential solutions.

The significance of this issue extends beyond academic interest to fundamental questions of democratic governance. As the Indian judiciary faces increasing scrutiny regarding its independence and effectiveness, the practice of post-retirement appointments has emerged as a critical factor affecting public confidence in judicial institutions. The systematic nature of these appointments, combined with their potential impact on judicial behavior, necessitates comprehensive analysis and reform consideration.

Legal framework

Constitutional Framework Governing Post-Retirement Appointments The Indian constitution does not explicitly prohibit retired judges from joining politics. It only talks about prohibition of retired supreme court judges from practicing in the legal field.3 In case of high court judges, the retired judge can practice in any other high court and supreme court. These provisions only focus on prohibiting legal practice and not political positions. Although article 50 mandates to take steps to separate judiciary from the executives in the public services of the State.”

Constituent Assembly Debates

Constituent Assembly members expressed clear concern about post-retirement employment for judges.

On 31 May 1949, the Assembly debating judicial provisions remarked that the framers “did not want theJudges to accept jobs and hang round in the corridors of Dr. Ambedkar or Sardar Patel” a vivid warning against judges seeking executive or ministerial posts after stepping down. On 7 June 1949, Prof. K.T. Shah moved a formal amendment (draft Art. 193A) to bar any former Supreme or High Court judge from holding any office of profit under the Union or State, including ambassadorships or ministries. Shah and supporters argued this was necessary to preserve judicial independence. Prof. K.T. Shah proposed an amendment to prohibit former judges from holding any office of profit, to safeguard judicial independence. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar contested the amendment, arguing that it imposed undue burdens on judges who retire young and receive modest pensions. He further contended that the judiciary seldom interacts with the government, rendering such a prohibition unnecessary. Ultimately, the proposed amendment was not adopted..7

Law Commission and Official Reports

Subsequent entities have also advocated for reform. The First Law Commission (1958), led by M.C. Setalvad, condemned post-retirement roles. Its 14th Report stated that it is “clearly undesirable” for Supreme Court Judges to anticipate government employment post-retirement, due to the government’s involvement in numerous cases in the High Court and Supreme Court. It urged discontinuing the practice.

A Rajya Sabha reply in 2024 confirms the 14th Commission’s stance, and notes that “no cooling off India Const. art. 50.

period is stipulated in the Constitution.” No Law Commission report was enacted into law. Later jurists and committees similarly argued for limits. Most recently, CJI B.R. Gavai in 2025 flagged the issue in an international forum, echoing Law Commission and prior chief justices’ calls for formal cooling-off guidelines (e.g. a two-year ban) on judges accepting post-retirement posts’

Judicial Codes and Norms

Judges’ political activity is strictly discouraged by the judiciary’s own ethical norms. According to the Supreme Court’s Full Bench’s 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a judge’s actions, even when they take place outside of court, “must reaffirm the people’s faith in the impartiality of the judiciary”. “Similarly, the internationally-endorsed Bangalore Principles of  Judicial Conduct (2002) enshrine judicial independence and impartiality as paramount. As the Bangalore Principles state, “judicial  independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law,” and a judge “shall uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects”12

Case laws

Baharul Islam, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of India, became embroiled in controversy following a significant career shift. His most controversial ruling came in December 1982, when newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Jun/04/retired-judges-taking-up-jobs-with-government-raises-ethical-c oncerns-invites-public-scrutiny-cji-gavai (visited Aug. 21, 2025).

he authored the Supreme Court’s majority opinion acquitting Bihar Chief Minister Jagannath Mishra, a politician, of serious charges of forgery and criminal misconduct. Critics widely condemned the verdict, arguing it effectively granted immunity from prosecution to a sitting Chief Minister. Just six weeks shy of his scheduled retirement, Justice Islam abruptly resigned from the bench on January 13, 1983, to pursue a Lok Sabha seat. Strikingly, the very next day, he was granted a Congress Party ticket to contest the Barpeta constituency in Assam. Islam was no stranger to the political arena, having served as a Congress Rajya Sabha MP in the 1960s before his judicial appointment. Though his Lok Sabha bid was ultimately unsuccessful (the Barpeta poll was delayed by violence, and he subsequently secured a Rajya Sabha seat in May 1983), his swift return to active politics underscored his perceived closeness to then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The confluence of these events immediately sparked intense scrutiny. Media outlets,including The Indian Express, openly questioned whether there was a direct quid pro quo – a reciprocal arrangement where his favorable judicial verdict for a prominent Congress Chief Minister paved the way for his immediate re-entry into Congress politics.13

Justice Arya’s tenure garnered national attention for a series of contentious bail rulings. In July 2020, he granted bail in a molestation case under the unusual condition that the accused tie a sacred rakhi thread on the survivor’s wrist, pledging “to protect her.” The Supreme Court swiftly condemned this order, cautioning that it “transforms a molester into a brother” and gravely undermines the seriousness of the offense. Just months later, in January 2021, Arya was again in the spotlight when he denied bail to stand-up comedian Munawar Faruqui. Faruqui had been arrested, who alleged he had offended religious sentiments during a rehearsal. Arya’s order justified the denial by emphasizing the constitutional obligation of citizens and states “to promote harmony.” The Faruqui decision drew widespread criticism and was widely interpreted through a communal lens, given the accused’s Muslim background and the nature of the allegations involving Hindu deities.

The Wire Staff, Former Madhya Pradesh High Court Judge Known for Controversial Judgements Joins BJP, The Wire, July 14, 2024, available at thewire.in/politics/former-madhya-pradesh-high-court-judge-known-for-controversial-judgements-joins-bjp (visited Aug. 21, 2025)

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

United States: Life Tenure Model

The U.S. Constitution grants federal judges lifetime tenure as long as they exhibit “good behavior,” which effectively abolishes any retirement-related concerns. Article III judges serve until death, resignation, or removal through impeachment.15 offering several benefits like Elimination of post-retirement appointment incentives,Maximum insulation from political pressures throughout their careers, Consistent judicial decision-making without retirement considerations, Clear separation between the judicial and executive branches. However, this system also presents challenges such as potential judicial senility, a lack of fresh perspectives, and difficulty adapting to changing social conditions.

PORTUGAL: Complete Ban

Portugal maintains a comprehensive and enduring prohibition on political activity for its judges, a restriction that explicitly extends to those in retirement. This stricture is enshrined within the Estatuto dos Magistrados Judiciais (the Statute of Judicial Judges). Specifically, Article 6.°-A outright bars judges from engaging in partisan political activity and from holding any political office. Crucially, Article 8.°-A unequivocally broadens these incompatibilities, clarifying that they apply equally to judges in active service and to those who have retired. Furthermore, this article also prohibits them from undertaking any other public or private professional function.

Therefore, the combined force of these provisions ensures that even a retired Portuguese judge remains strictly prohibited from holding political office or participating in party political endeavors.

United Kingdom (UK)

The United Kingdom has established a comprehensive framework17 of judicial conduct guidelines, developed through the Judicial Appointments Commission and various judicial conduct bodies. This robust system incorporates several key measures to maintain judicial integrity. For instance, strong, albeit informal, “cooling-off periods” are in place, discouraging judges from immediate political involvement after leaving the bench. Judges can also proactively seek advisory opinions, allowing them to gain guidance on potential conflicts of interest before accepting new roles. Furthermore, transparency is ensured through requirements for the public disclosure of significant post-retirement activities. To reinforce these standards, a system of peer review is in place, with judicial conduct committees actively monitoring these post-retirement activities to uphold ethical expectations.

Proposed Reforms

Legislative initiatives

Constitutional amendment

To strengthen the judiciary’s uncompromised independence, a constitutional amendment is strongly recommended. This vital revision would explicitly prohibit judges from accepting post-retirement government employment, thereby establishing a robust constitutional foundation for such restrictions. Crucially, it would create a clear legal framework for enforcement, setting a significant precedent for institutional autonomy and directly addressing the current constitutional silence surrounding judges’ post-retirement activities.

Judicial Ethics and Conduct Legislation

To strengthen public trust and ensure the integrity of the judiciary, it is recommended that comprehensive legislation be enacted to establish a robust framework for judicial ethics and conduct. This essential framework would mandate several key provisions, including compulsory disclosure requirements for judges’ post-retirement interests to prevent conflicts of interest, and the implementation of structured cooling-off periods before they can assume new appointments.

Furthermore, it would introduce enhanced transparency requirements for judicial appointment processes, establish an independent oversight mechanism specifically for judicial conduct review, and clearly define penalties for any violations of these critical ethical guidelines.

Institutional Mechanisms

Independent Judicial Ethics Commission

To uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, the establishment of an Independent Judicial Ethics Commission is proposed. This vital body would be tasked with a broad mandate, beginning with its carefully considered composition: it would comprise three retired Supreme Court judges and two retired High Court judges, with the crucial stipulation that none have accepted government positions post-retirement. Further strengthening its expertise and independence, the commission would also include two distinguished legal academics and one representative from civil society. Its powers and functions would be extensive, encompassing the review and approval of post-retirement government appointments, the investigation of potential conflicts of interest, and the ongoing development and updating of ethical guidelines. Moreover, it would actively monitor compliance with judicial conduct requirements and ensure transparency by publishing annual reports on judicial ethics. The 99th Constitutional Amendment introduced a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to streamline judicial appointments and discipline. Yet, the Supreme Court decisively invalidated this commission, arguing it fundamentally undermined judicial independence13.

Transparency and Disclosure Reforms

Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

To strengthen public confidence and judicial integrity, a comprehensive system of mandatory disclosure must be enacted. Before retirement, officials would be required to annually declare any potential post-retirement employment or interests they are pursuing, alongside all communications with government officials regarding future positions. This obligation would extend to revealing any financial Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass’n v. Union of India, (2015) 1 S.C.C. 1 (India).

interests that could lead to conflicts of interest and mandating recusal from cases involving potential future employers. Following retirement, the commitment to transparency continues, necessitating the public reporting of all government appointments and the compensation received. The Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of High Court judges outlines the process and criteria for judicial appointments.19 While it emphasizes transparency, it does not mandate comprehensive disclosure requirements for judges. Calls for mandatory disclosure of assets, liabilities, and potential conflicts of interest remain a topic of discussion to enhance public trust in the judiciary.

Public Transparency Portal

To foster greater public trust and accountability in government, developing a robust digital platform is recommended. This comprehensive online resource would provide up-to-the-minute information on judicial appointments and retirements, alongside a publicly accessible database detailing the post-service activities of former officials. Furthermore, it would host searchable records of all government appointments, offer annual statistical analyses of appointment patterns, and include transparent reports on compliance with ethical guidelines, clearly documenting any ethics violations.

Procedural Reforms

Cooling-off Period Implementation

To ensure ethical transitions and mitigate potential conflicts of interest, a graduated system of cooling-off periods is recommended. For the most sensitive and influential positions, including gubernatorial roles, constitutional commission memberships, cabinet and ministerial appointments, and senior political party affiliations, a comprehensive two-year restriction is proposed. Roles of significant administrative and regulatory authority, such as the chairpersonships of administrative tribunals, members of government inquiry commissions, leaders of regulatory bodies, and Law Commission members, would be subject to a one-year cooling-off period. Finally, for more specialized and less permanent engagements, including academic government advisory roles, technical committee memberships, and one-time consultation assignments, a six-month restriction would apply.

Conclusion

India grapples with a fundamental tension concerning post-retirement judicial appointments: balancing the valuable utilization of judicial expertise in public service against the imperative to safeguard institutional independence. While retired judges offer invaluable experience and knowledge crucial forpublic administration, the current system’s insufficient safeguards create truly unacceptable risks to judicial independence. However, global precedents affirm that effective safeguards are both necessary and achievable. Nations with analogous constitutional frameworks have successfully implemented reforms that protect judicial autonomy while enabling appropriate post-retirement public service. India’s democratic fabric would substantially benefit from adapting these proven international models.

The urgency for such reform is amplified by heightened public awareness and scrutiny of judicial independence issues. As democratic institutions worldwide face increasing challenges, preserving the judiciary’s uncompromised independence and integrity becomes even more critical for upholding constitutional governance and the rule of law.

This article aims to provide a robust foundation for informed policy discussions and reform initiatives. By offering a comprehensive analysis of constitutional, institutional, and comparative dimensions, it delivers evidence-based insights for policymakers, legal scholars, and civil society organizations dedicated to strengthening India’s judicial independence.

Achieving this vital reform demands a concerted and sustained commitment from all stakeholders: the judiciary, political leadership, civil society, and the broader public. Only through comprehensive reforms that address the structural incentives and institutional vulnerabilities identified herein can India ensure its judicial institutions remain the indispensable bedrock of effective democratic governance.

Reference(S):

1. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass’n v. Union of India, (2015) 1 S.C.C. 1 (India).
2. India Const. art. 50.
3. India Const. art. 124, cl. 7.
4. India Const. art. 220.
5. Parliament of Australia, The Australian Constitution, Parliament of Australia (visited Aug. 23, 2025), https://www.aph.gov.au/About Parliament/Senate/Practice and Procedure/Constitution.
6. Department of Justice, Memorandum of Procedure for Appointment of High Court Judges, https://doj.gov.in/memorandum-of-procedure-of-appointment-of-high-court-judges/ (last visited Aug. 23, 2025).
7. Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice, Rajya Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 2819 (Post-Retirement Jobs for Judges), Answered Dec. 19, 2024, available at https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/266/AU2819 T2bBI0.pdf (visited Aug. 21, 2025).
8. Law Commission of India, 14th Report on Reform of Judicial Administration (1958), available at https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/…/2022080514.pdf (visited Aug. 21, 2025).
9. Constituent Assembly Debates (India), Vol. VIII, 31 May 1949, at [pinpoint], available at Indian Kanoon (visited Aug. 21, 2025), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1830284/.
10. Constituent Assembly Debates (India), Vol. VIII, 7 June 1949 (Part I), at [pinpoint], available at Indian Kanoon (visited Aug. 21, 2025), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174535/.
11. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. Courts (visited Aug. 23, 2025),https://www.uscourts.gov.
12. Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai, Retired Judges Taking Up Jobs with Government Raises Ethical Concerns, Invites Public Scrutiny, New Indian Express (PTI), June 4, 2025 (updated June 4, 2025), available at https://newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Jun/04/retired-judges-taking-up-jobs-with-government -raises-ethical-concerns-invites-public–scrutiny-cji-gavai (visited Aug. 21, 2025).
13. Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, Diário da República Eletrónico, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/en (last visited Aug. 23, 2025).
14. R.C. Lahoti, Canons of Judicial Ethics (First M.C. Setalvad Memorial Lecture, Supreme Court of India, 22 Feb. 2005), available at https://highcourtchd.gov.in/…/canons.pdf (visited Aug. 21, 2025).
15. Supreme Court of India, Justice Sir Saiyid Fazl Ali (visited Aug. 21, 2025), https://www.sci.gov.in/judge/justice-sir-saiyid-fazl-ali/.
16. Supreme Court of India, Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (adopted by Full Court, 7 May 1997), available at https://scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Restatement-of-values-of-judicial-life.pdf (visited Aug. 21, 2025).
17. The Wire Staff, Former Madhya Pradesh High Court Judge Known for Controversial Judgements Joins BJP, The Wire, July 14, 2024, available at https://thewire.in/politics/former-madhya-pradesh-high-court-judge-known-for-controversial-judg ements-joins-bjp (visited Aug. 21, 2025).
18. Vidhatri Rao, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay Not the First: When Two SC Judges Quit Judiciary to Run for Office, Ind. Express (Mar. 5, 2024, updated Mar. 6, 2024), https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/courtroom-politics-justice-abhijit-gangopadhyay- quits-sc-judges-polls-9196815/ (last visited Aug. 21, 2025).