Arguments in favour

♤ No legal/ constitutional bar- the Article 124(7) provides that a retired Supreme Court judge cannot “plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India”.

o This provision only restricts post- retirement appointments in Judiciary itself, but not in posts of president, governor, member of parliament, etc.

o There is no cooling off period before a Judge following his/her retirement.

♤ Not a strict separation of power- the Indian constitution does not provide for a strict separation of powers as available in the American constitution.

o Further, the legislature and judiciary can work together for nation-building, if there are such exchange of personalities.

o The presence of judges in Parliament will be an opportunity to project the views of the judiciary before the legislature and vice versa.

♤ Other instances of post-retirement appointments of judges- in other domains and areas such as Justice P. Sathasivam was appointed the Governor of Kerala and Justice Hidayatullah became the Vice President of India.

♤ Has not joined any political party- The given instance is of nomination of judge. There is a crucial difference between elected and nominated members.

o Those who are elected to a house from a party are subject to whip of that party. They are bound to vote the way the party directs them, and in general, they can’t criticise the party and the govt if the party is in power.

o On the other hand, a nominated member is an independent member, not subject to any party whip.

♤ Legal knowledge: The valuable experience and insights that judges acquire during their period of service cannot be wasted after retirement.

o Adds value to the Rajya Sabha debates- Eminent judges can contribute towards more nuanced law making in the country and strengthen Rajya Sabha as the conscience keeper of the Parliament.