Chief Justices Have Sufficient Tenure of 3-4 Yrs: AG KK Venugopal

What was the suggestion?

• Attorney General KK Venugopal proposed in a speech on Thursday that the Chief Justice of India should serve for a minimum of three years.
• He made the remark while speaking at a function hosted by the Supreme Court Bar Association to honour India's current Chief Justice, Justice SA Bobde.
• The swearing-in ceremony for the new Chief Justice, AG continued, was like the birth of a new Supreme Court.
• In his speech, in a highlight, the Attorney-General supported the demand of the SCBA to develop more Chambers for the Lawyers.
• He then brought to the forefront the two main issues afflicting the Bar as well as the Bench
• As a member of the Bar, the Attorney-General raised the critically relevant but delicate question of a judge's tenure.
• In an unexpected turn, he proposed that a Chief Justice of India serve for a minimum of three years.

Further suggestions made by the AG KK Venugopal

• Moving on with the speech, the Attorney-General mentioned how the Collegium, thankfully, still adhered to the Principle of Seniority.
• Following the historic Keshavnanda Bharati decision, four of the most senior judges who had ruled against the government were replaced. Justice Khanna was also replaced after the ADM Jabalpur.
• In his final remarks, the Attorney-General urged the Collegium to consider this aspect when determining seniority and naming a Judge. He also mentioned that the retirement age for Supreme Court and High Court judges should be raised.
• He concluded his speech by expressing his conviction that implementing the aforementioned recommendations would result in a complete reform of the justice system, ensuring its greatness.
• Attorney General KK Venugopal reiterated on Friday that the retirement age for judges in the higher judiciary should be raised from 65 to 75 years.
• The AG praised Justice Bobde in particular for two recent decisions, one on ad hoc judges and the other on rules for the selection of High Court judges, which he said would have a significant effect on justice delivery.
• "No one had used Article 224A, so it had been reduced to a dead text." The decision to nominate ad hoc judges would help to reduce the massive backlog of unpaid bills. In the High Courts, there are 40% vacancies. For the first time, anyone took command.
• The process for making recommendations now includes time limits, which were not included in the MoP. This will result in a reduction in the number of vacancies, as well as a substantial change in the amount of arrears owed.

What is your say on this?