Why Judges of the Supreme Court are Prohibited to Practice After Retirement?

Judges of the Supreme Court are Prohibited to Practice After Retirement: The judiciary is tasked with upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all, making it an essential component of democracy. It is essential for judges to maintain their independence throughout their tenure in order to maintain impartiality and the public’s trust. The practice of preventing retired Supreme Court judges from practicing law has been established in many nations, including several with common law traditions like India and the United States. The significance of this restriction in maintaining the judiciary’s integrity is examined in this article.

Following are the reasons why the judges of the Supreme Court are prohibited to practice after retirement

1. Preserving Judicial Independence:

The disallowance of post-retirement practice is fundamentally established in the guideline of legal freedom. Any actual or alleged conflicts of interest that could jeopardize the impartiality of judges must be avoided at all costs. If retired judges are allowed to continue practicing law, it could lead to compromises in the fair and just application of the law because their decisions as judges could be influenced by their future career prospects.

2. Preserving Judicial Integrity:

Prohibiting post-retirement practice acts as a safeguard for the judiciary’s credibility. Retired judges are well-known personalities with considerable clout in the legal community. Allowing them to practice law immediately after retiring from the Supreme Court may result in a power imbalance, perhaps leading to favoritism or the perception of preferential treatment for their clients. Keeping the court and the legal profession apart helps to ensure the impartiality and integrity of the overall judicial system.

3. Avoiding Conflict of Interest:

It is expected of judges to decide cases solely on the basis of the law’s merits and the evidence presented to them. There is a possibility that retired judges will appear before their former colleagues or even have their own decisions challenged in court if they are allowed to practice law. Such situations might bring about irreconcilable circumstances, as private connections and expert affiliations created during their residency on the seat could cloud their judgment or subvert public trust in the legal executive.

4. Encouraging Judicial Retirement:

The restriction on post-retirement practise can also serve as an incentive for judges to retire at a reasonable age, ensuring that the judiciary is replenished with new blood. By prohibiting retired judges from continuing legal practise, it encourages them to step down from their posts as soon as possible, allowing fresher and more varied legal minds to take their place on the court. This encourages variety, supports the progress of the court, and prevents stagnation in the interpretation and execution of the law.

5. Alternative Roles for Retired Judges:

While resigned High Court judges will be unable to provide legal counsel, they can in any case add to society and the legitimate local area in different ways. Numerous nations offer roads for resigned judges to act as referees, middle people, or counsels in elective question goal components. They can also help by teaching, mentoring aspiring lawyers, participating in legal research, or serving on law reform commissions. By doing these things, they can share their wealth of experience without jeopardizing the independence of the judiciary.

Conclusion:

A crucial safeguard that safeguards judicial independence prevents conflicts of interest, and preserves the judiciary’s integrity is the Supreme Court’s prohibition on the post-retirement practice. It ensures that retired judges’ decisions and actions during their tenure are not influenced by personal gain or professional ambitions by preventing them from practicing law immediately after retirement. This restriction facilitates new ideas and perspectives in the legal system and prompts retirement, and diversity on the bench. In the end, it increases public confidence in the judiciary, ensuring that it can provide equitable and impartial justice to all.